I just want to see what the liberals and social justice freaks think of the union thugs and anti capitalists beating up reporters and freedom-loving activists out there and sending them to the hospital and getting arested? it doesnt sound like "peace and love"

2/28/2011 3:57:35 PM

Yes, depart at this time and don't be approaching any more, or we fire arrows at the tops of your heads and make castanets out of your testicles already!

2/28/2011 4:10:34 PM

Well, the liberal in me is opposed to violence. On the other hand, the commie fascist part of me is all for it. I'm torn.

[Edited on February 28, 2011 at 4:22 PM. Reason : .]

2/28/2011 4:12:47 PM

possibly people have been killed

2/28/2011 4:23:02 PM

^ No chance, English bed-wetting types. I burst my pimples at you and call your door-opening request a silly thing, you tiny-brained wipers of other people's bottoms!

2/28/2011 4:24:34 PM

Quote :

"possibly people have been killed"

Then the will of God hath been done.

2/28/2011 4:26:38 PM

maybe those people needed a good killin. did you ever think of that? I'm just saying...

2/28/2011 4:43:05 PM

I read this somewhere else, so I can't take credit for it, but I found it pretty funny, and an interesting commentary on the state of some of the disagreements today.

Quote :

"A unionized public employee, a member of the Tea Party, and a CEO are sitting at a table. In the middle of the table there is a plate with a dozen cookies on it. The CEO reaches across and takes 11 cookies looks at the Tea Partier and says,"look out for that union guy, he wants a piece of your cookie.""

2/28/2011 8:34:16 PM

I actually wouldn't mind if someone with a better grasp on labor matters would explain this to me. Exactly what collective bargaining rights are being taken away? My view has always been that, well, if you can get together enough people to go on strike to demand better pay/conditions, then you have collective bargaining rights. If you can't get enough people together, tough shit. I gather that this is more or less the NC position on things, but this is really a big gaping hole in my knowledge.

2/28/2011 8:37:24 PM

Quote :

"My view has always been that, well, if you can get together enough people to go on strike to demand better pay/conditions, then you have collective bargaining rights."

This has been my view as well.

And NC I think has laws actively banning public unions, last I checked…

I think federally, there are laws that compel people to join unions, which go a step beyond the “organic” process i have quoted of you here.

Regarding Wi, i’m not sure what things exactly are being banned.

2/28/2011 8:40:00 PM

I've always associated unions with corruption and coercion, but then again I've always lived in a town where there was more than one employer and more than one way to earn a buck. It seems to me that mandatory public sector unions are a terrible idea, since it gives the union a monopoly on entrance to an already narrow career field in a industry that already lacks sufficient fiscal oversight. Then again it isn't fair for everyone to benefit from successful union bargaining and not pay their dues. But it seems to me that union dues will always go to worthless newsletters and lobbyist bribes for issues many of the employees don't even care about, not to mention lining the pockets of union bosses. I'm not even sure unions are an adequate protector of workers rights, since it's in the union leaders' best interest to keep the factory churning along.

NC has public unions, like the NCEA teachers union, but participation isn't mandatory. It's my understanding that they have managed to get some protections into law, for better or worse, like tenure after 3 years.

[Edited on February 28, 2011 at 9:26 PM. Reason : .]

2/28/2011 9:23:08 PM

I don't know if NC has laws that ban unions, but we are a right-to-work state, which means that you don't have to join a union to get a job in a field. There are certain areas that require joining the union. It makes sense when you think about it in one way, because union members pay dues and work towards the collective good, and they bear more of a stigma from the employer than non-union members, and the benefits they get are for the entire workforce, not just the union members (usually).

So if you were working at a job and everyone else paid into the union and abided by their bargaining policies, but you didn't, you'd get the reward anyway. Not saying I agree with it, just that it's one perspective.

As for collective bargaining, it is what goes into the initial contract formation process. By having collective bargaining agreements, the unions can say that they are negotiating for all workers rights, and they have the innate force behind them that they can actually speak for all the members. When the union goes on strike, everyone agrees. If there were no collective bargaining agreements, then who would represent teachers, dockworkers, or airline pilots when it came time to decide workers' rights? If you and I work side by side, I can't very well go into the boss's office and negotiate your days off, and you can't do the same for me. That isn't true with collective bargaining.

Without a single voice representing the overall interests of a group, it is more likely that the corporation (or in this case, the government), will be able to get the concessions they want.

I am actually leaning more towards thinking this isn't such a big deal now, even though I used to be a teacher, just because the budget does need to be cut, and if some people have to take the hit, that's the way it has to be. As long as the Republican government there is cutting other areas as well, then this is just the unfortunately reality of a recession. The reason they want to eliminate the collective bargaining agreements is because without them, it becomes much easier to privatize areas that are inefficient (like, for example, if feeding prisoners can be done $50 million cheaper by contracting out certain aspects instead of using government workers, then go for it...that likely can't be done when all workers have a collective bargaining agreement...that's similar to an actual example of what happened).

At least, that's what I understand. I could be wrong.

2/28/2011 9:25:54 PM

Quote :

"The Wisconsin proposal would require public sector employees to pay more for pensions and health care, strip some of their unions of bargaining rights except for wages up to the rate of inflation and require yearly recertification votes. "

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/01/us-wisconsin-governor-idUSTRE71R51620110301?pageNumber=1

I don't get why the governor needs to legislate a stripping of bargaining rights. The unions have already accepted a cut in pensions and health as a compromise.

If they want to negotiate non-wage benefits later on, then you negotiate. It would be dumb for them to give this ability up preemptively.

2/28/2011 9:52:17 PM

Governor Walker is obviously gone mad and now he has ordered violence against the protesters. I'm really hoping the Federal community can step in and intervene before this gets ugly...

2/28/2011 10:02:45 PM

All I'll say is there's a reason Bartleby and Loki were banished to that state.

2/28/2011 10:08:40 PM

While I problem with how unions have affected business in this country, I'm not opposed to labor unions in principle. There's a major difference between private sector and public sector unions, though, and it's a difference that doesn't seem to be garnering enough attention.

Private sector workers are paid for by the company. Their wages come as a result of profit. Public sector workers, though, are paid by the taxpayers. There is no economic feedback for the public sector; public sector workers and bureaucrats will try to get as much for themselves as they can, which is not necessarily wrong, but expected. Treating this as a regular "worker's rights" situation is inappropriate.

What we're seeing in Wisconsin is what we'll see in other states, and perhaps eventually on the federal level. Literally every single state has overextended itself. Once people are "given" something by the government, they won't give it up without a fight. Entitlements are the looming crisis right now. People can protest all they want, but the government promised too much and won't be able to deliver. The average public sector worker doesn't understand or care about that, though - it's their life at stake, and I can understand that. We're headed for chaotic times, I believe.

2/28/2011 10:18:07 PM

Quote :

"I'm really hoping the Federal community can step in and intervene "

The federal community will be seeking to cut jobs and benefits on the national level very soon. Every politician that has to balance a budget hates unions, but most don't think they can get away with union busting.

2/28/2011 10:20:35 PM

Quote :

" The average public sector worker doesn't understand or care about that, though - it's their life at stake, and I can understand that. We're headed for chaotic times, I believe. "

This is bullshit.

They have already said they would agree to health/benefits/paycuts to keep their right to negotiate (which is the whole point of a union).

The governor, like lots of other conservatives, just has an irrational hatred of "unions" and really seems to just be stubborn.

It seems Wi public sector employees already make substantially less than private equivalents:



From what i've read, there really is no need for the Wi gov. to cripple the unions to balance the budget. He's already gotten ALL the monetary concessions he needs for his budget numbers to work out, he is just vindictive towards unions.

[Edited on February 28, 2011 at 10:29 PM. Reason : ]

2/28/2011 10:22:26 PM

^until the unions get their guys back in office to give them it all back.

You are too smart not to understand why he is going after it.

Is it really such a bad idea to give people the option of opting out of the union?

2/28/2011 10:38:03 PM

Quote :

"until the unions get their guys back in office to give them it all back You are too smart not to understand why he is going after it. "

He doesn't like the idea that employees can have the power to negotiate with their bosses. He feels that employers should have all the power, period. This is what he implied when he had his conversation with the fake-Koch caller.

And if the unions get "their guys" back in office, that doesn't really mean anything. First, that's how democracy works, power changes hands sometimes. Secondly, even the union members are concerned about keeping a balanced budget, they're already taking substantial pay and benefit cuts to make this happen. They're just not giving up their bargaining rights, because this is the cornerstone of a union (and might even be a first-amendment issue).

Quote :

"Is it really such a bad idea to give people the option of opting out of the union? "

This has nothing to do with the Wi issue...

[Edited on February 28, 2011 at 10:48 PM. Reason : ]

2/28/2011 10:47:47 PM

Quote :

""But I don't think it's constructive to say we should be leveling everybody down — to say 'That's not fair that they have [good] healthcare and a pension, because none of the rest of us have that.' "We should be looking to expand the beachhead they've made, rather than pull them into the ocean with the rest of us," he said."

Quote :

" In part, that's because fewer Americans are union members. Fifty years ago, 35% of the nation's private workforce belonged to a labor union. Today, that has shrunk to less than 7%."

Quote :

""Every industry that has been unionized has led to better wages, hours and working conditions for every other worker in that industry," he said. "

Unions aren't the cause of our problems, they've suffered at least as much as other employees through the recession, and they've already agreed to the budget-saving measures the governor campaigned on, and they're already shrinking overall nationwide.

It makes no sense for them to give up their right to even negotiate.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-banks-20110301,0,6086519.column

2/28/2011 11:03:14 PM

It's true that unions now are taking a different stance, because they realize what it means to the company to be inflexible, but for years the auto and airline unions and a lot of blue collar unions were what caused companies to become unstable.

After many large corporations have failed, most unions now understand they have to take a cut in benefits and pensions (the largest debt issue, since they often continue after the worker is no longer making money for the company) or the company goes belly up. The union environment is not the same as it was twenty years ago.

2/28/2011 11:12:08 PM

Not saying the numbers are right or wrong that you posted, but the Economic Policy Institute gets 30% of it's funding by unions. Not sure that it's necessarily the most unbiased of sources.

2/28/2011 11:14:59 PM

Quote :

"It's true that unions now are taking a different stance, because they realize what it means to the company to be inflexible, but for years the auto and airline unions and a lot of blue collar unions were what caused companies to become unstable. After many large corporations have failed, most unions now understand they have to take a cut in benefits and pensions (the largest debt issue, since they often continue after the worker is no longer making money for the company) or the company goes belly up. The union environment is not the same as it was twenty years ago. "

All true things.

But why demand they give up their bargaining rights?

Unions didn't force the investment banks into selling bad investments to everyone else in the industry. If you want to prevent budget deficits going into the future, fixing the flaws that lead to the investment sector collapse would go WAAYYY farther than trying to pick on the <7% of Americans that are in unions.


[Edited on February 28, 2011 at 11:33 PM. Reason : ]

2/28/2011 11:26:40 PM

I heard that unions were responsible for the mortgage crisis.

And that they kicked my dog.

2/28/2011 11:32:19 PM

Quote :

"I don't get why the governor needs to legislate a stripping of bargaining rights. The unions have already accepted a cut in pensions and health as a compromise."

Because the previous time they tried negotiations, it took them 18 months of feet-dragging to get anything accomplished, and they don't have 18-months to dick around. Sure, this time they caved in right away, but only because they knew they had no chance. The point has been that the union has been ridiculously inflexible, and that has been part of the problem

Quote :

"Every industry that has been unionized has led to better wages, hours and working conditions for every other worker in that industry," he said."

Yep. Tell that to all of those textile unions and manufacturing unions whose jobs went overseas.

Quote :

"He doesn't like the idea that employees can have the power to negotiate with their bosses."

No. Maybe he understands that there is something wrong with a powerful lobby electing its bosses and then demanding kickbacks for it. You know, like labour leaders have done in the past... Maybe, just maybe, he has a fucking problem with shit like this:

Quote :

"A camera focuses on an official of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), California's largest public employees' union, sitting in a legislative chamber and speaking into a microphone. "We helped to get you into office, and we got a good memory," she says to the elected officials outside the shot. "Come November, if you don't back our program, we'll get you out of office.""

http://washingtonexaminer.com/node/520117

and I love your graph on public versus private, there, buddy. That graph is all about means, not medians. Thus, your high-paid corporate execs and salespeople, who have no analogue in gov't, skew the numbers. Moreover, when we look at the median, we see that the public workers DO earn more. Plus, it doesn't capture a value on job security. Oh, and what about the nasty fact that public teachers have far better wages and benefits than private school teachers? The argument really begins to fall apart at that point

2/28/2011 11:52:58 PM

Quote :

"Because the previous time they tried negotiations, it took them 18 months of feet-dragging to get anything accomplished, and they don't have 18-months to dick around. Sure, this time they caved in right away, but only because they knew they had no chance."

Congratulations, you just explained how negotiations work.

When the union knew things mattered, they buckled down. That's more reason to leave their bargaining rights alone.

Quote :

"No. Maybe he understands that there is something wrong with a powerful lobby electing its bosses and then demanding kickbacks for it. You know, like labour leaders have done in the past... "

That's fun speculation, but is entirely baseless. It reinforces my point that this governor and his ilk (like you, i presume) have blind, irrational hatred for unions. Thanks, buddy.

Quote :

"Quote : "A camera focuses on an official of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), California's largest public employees' union, sitting in a legislative chamber and speaking into a microphone. "We helped to get you into office, and we got a good memory," she says to the elected officials outside the shot. "Come November, if you don't back our program, we'll get you out of office."" http://washingtonexaminer.com/node/520117"

LOL, that's how democracy works. Funny, isn't it? People voting for people who represent their interests???

Or are you suggesting that having the Koch brothers dictate policy for everyone else is somehow superior?

[Edited on March 1, 2011 at 12:03 AM. Reason : ]

3/1/2011 12:02:01 AM

no, democracy shouldn't work that way when it's the people's money at risk. You don't get to fucking elect your boss and then demand he pay you more. Like someone else said, when a private union does it and the company flops, the company and the workers suffer. When a public union does it, the whole fucking tax-base suffers. That's the intrinsic difference.

and if you don't see a problem with a union holding tax-payers hostage like that guy did, then you are a fool.

and, no, 18-months is absurd when you have an actual budget crisis. That's the governor's point. I'm sorry that you think the tax-payer should be on the hook when a powerful lobby goes and elects its own boss and demands pay raises after it

[Edited on March 1, 2011 at 12:13 AM. Reason : ]

3/1/2011 12:12:07 AM

Quote :

"no, democracy shouldn't work that way when it's the people's money at risk. You don't get to fucking elect your boss and then demand he pay you more. Like someone else said, when a private union does it and the company flops, the company and the workers suffer. When a public union does it, the whole fucking tax-base suffers. That's the intrinsic difference."

You shouldn’t do this, and it seems the Wi workers haven’t been doing this. If the union demands break the budget, you negotiate a different solution. That’s how negotiations work.

And the thing you quoted was different than the point you made. Unions or no unions, everyone should be paying attention to what their politicians are doing. “State employees” make the same statement about politicians as what you quoted. All “groups” do in fact.

Quote :

"and, no, 18-months is absurd when you have an actual budget crisis. That's the governor's point. I'm sorry that you think the tax-payer should be on the hook when a powerful lobby goes and elects its own boss and demands pay raises after it "

It is absurd, but it’s clearly not a hard and fast rule for the unions, is it?

And the tax-payer is on the hook for powerful lobbies as it is, the unions are the LEAST of our concerns. I’d much rather we go after the banking industries, the energy industry (as it is the Wi governor is closely allied with this lobby, no problems there though right?), the M-I complex, or any of the number of groups that use their power and wealth against the rest of the citizenry.

If the graph I posted is remotely accurate, the unions in Wi are very fair and reasonable. They’re not the problem you are making them out to be. The facts are against you in this case, burro.

You are saying we should deny people what is essentially their free speech rights because you don’t like the way they use it? Do you really think so little of the constitution and the founding fathers?


[Edited on March 1, 2011 at 12:25 AM. Reason : ]

3/1/2011 12:23:36 AM

Quote :

"You shouldn’t do this, and it seems the Wi workers haven’t been doing this. If the union demands break the budget, you negotiate a different solution. That’s how negotiations work."

Yet how do you expect there to be real negotiations when the unions routinely get their desired candidates into office? All they need do is wait until their next buddy gets in, and they go to town.

Quote :

"And the tax-payer is on the hook for powerful lobbies as it is, the unions are the LEAST of our concerns. I’d much rather we go after the banking industries, the energy industry (as it is the Wi governor is closely allied with this lobby, no problems there though right?), the M-I complex, or any of the number of groups that use their power and wealth against the rest of the citizenry."

I agree. let's get em all

Quote :

"If the graph I posted is remotely accurate, the unions in Wi are very fair and reasonable. They’re not the problem you are making them out to be. The facts are against you in this case, burro."

haha. nice rebuttal of my arguments. "NU UHHH!!!!"

Quote :

"You are saying we should deny people what is essentially their free speech rights because you don’t like the way they use it?"

Nice straw man. In no way am I saying they shouldn't have their rights to free speech. What they SHOULDN'T have, though, is the right to fleece the tax-payers

3/1/2011 12:44:57 AM

Quote :

"LOL, that's how democracy works. Funny, isn't it?"

Yep, moron, that is how democracy works. The people have spoken, the unions must go lose their collective bargaining.

Quote :

"If the graph I posted is remotely accurate, the unions in Wi are very fair and reasonable. They’re not the problem you are making them out to be. The facts are against you in this case, burro."

If you are right, then they have no use for their state mandated union but to reduce their wages even further through union dues. Non-union wages are the natural price floor for wages. If the state is honestly paying its workers too little, then the state must have no workers as everyone will have quit to take jobs in the private sector. That they have not is proof that state compensation is at least competitive.

Quote :

"He doesn't like the idea that employees can have the power to negotiate with their bosses. He feels that employers should have all the power, period."

Liar. He is not eliminating the union, merely restricting its abilities to negotiate on benefits. If he genuinely felt as you say he does, then he would need to institute a draft and make it illegal for state workers to quit. Back in reality, even the most fire-brand Republican nut seeks merely to restore legal equality between public and private sector workers.

Quote :

"but we are a right-to-work state, which means that you don't have to join a union to get a job in a field."

Union states are quite simple. The process is dictated by federal laws, so a 51% majority of workers in a secret ballot election can form a closed shop, making it illegal for the employer to hire anyone the union does not explicitly approve of, and all such workers will pay union dues and accept whatever contract the union negotiates, even if they refuse union membership on conscience. Unions are tightly regulated by the federal government and may only strike in proscribed circumstances. If a contract cannot be negotiated, then federal labor negotiators can step in and impose a settlement.

Meanwhile, in right-to-work North Carolina, unions are perfectly legal, even in the private sector. Only police and fire may not legally strike. Everyone else in the state can get together and decide to strike whenever they want against their employer. If the employer instead wants to give in to their demands, he can, provided he does not enter into a closed shop contract as described above, as such a contract is illegal in right to work states. As there are no closed shops, if the employer refused to negotiate and wants to make union non-membership a requirement for employment, he can.

You see, back in the pre-Wagner days of America, wildcat unions could negotiate an employer into being a closed shop, or a contractual obligation on the employer to never buy labor anywhere else. The courts would enforce such agreements. But such arrangements were rare, as until the employer signed such a contract, they could fire all the strikers and attempt to replace them. This bothered racists, as employers tended to refuse closed shop provisions to the bitter end so they could continue to employ non-whites in a time when nearly all labor unions enforced whites only requirements. Then came the Great Depression, and with white unemployment at an all time high, the time came to put a stop to the employment of non-whites, I mean the greed of employers. As white racists at that time made up a majority of the population, they had no trouble satisfying the 51% vote requirement to form a racially pure union. The gap between white and black unemployment rates quickly diverged after 1935 and remained that way for decades.

True, bad acts by 1930's unions don't mean anything today. Why I dislike closed shops today is because closed shops violate human rights of self determination and voluntary association, miss-allocate resources making society poorer as a whole, cause unemployment and lower wages among non-union workers, all in order to secure above market compensation for unionized workers. As a libertarian it is wrong to violate our rights. As an economist it is wrong to make us all poorer. As an moralist it is wrong to artificially impose unemployment upon a human being desperate to care for their family.

3/1/2011 2:30:19 AM

Quote :

"The people have spoken, the unions must go lose their collective bargaining."

Yes, the people have spoken in the form of mass protesting. Up to 100,000 strong at once.

You claim "the people have spoken" now, but when the government passes convtroversial legislation you don't agree with, will you say the same thing?

[Edited on March 1, 2011 at 8:13 AM. Reason : .]

3/1/2011 8:12:51 AM

It was moron who said "the people have spoken" was an argument, I just turned it around on him. As a libertarian, I myself am not a fan of democratic processes. I care whether a law is a good law, not whether other people think it is a good law.

3/1/2011 11:26:56 AM

Got you. I thought you were, so I was confused why you would use that argument.

3/1/2011 11:55:35 AM

why is it that libertarians all seem to go to great lengths to make sure you know they are a libertarian?

3/1/2011 1:48:19 PM

I am baffled that this turned into a real thread.

3/1/2011 2:06:45 PM

it's what happens around the power pack when the pack is backed

3/1/2011 2:40:40 PM

Has anyone mentioned that the "beating up reporters" thing was almost entirely fabricated? A protester tapped the reporter on the shoulder twice and he freaked out like he'd been struck, total dramaqueen shit.

http://www.liveleak.com/item?a=view&token=d2e_1298976953

IT WAS AN UNWANTED TOUCHING THAT IS ESSENTIALLY BATTERY

The brutal assault occurs around :50

[Edited on March 1, 2011 at 3:48 PM. Reason : .]

3/1/2011 3:44:10 PM

Quote :

"why is it that libertarians all seem to go to great lengths to make sure you know they are a libertarian?"

Because they were probably GOP a week ago and are now unique lil snowflakes.

3/1/2011 3:49:55 PM

I suspect it has more to do with expediency. If someone proclaims they are a Democrat or a Republican, as these are big-tent parties they have not said much about their preferred policies. As libertarian is a much smaller tent, the work actually possesses explanatory value, so we can and therefore do use it as a one word explanation for what is wrong with us.

3/1/2011 4:05:00 PM

I just wish the Teabaggers hadn't co-opted the label, because in the past "libertarian" basically meant "Republican, without the evil part"

and with that said...

3/2/2011 3:53:32 PM

I'm sure George Soros supported the other side. Difference being Walker got more votes.

3/2/2011 5:38:36 PM

the Koch Bros. funnelled more money through the Teabaggers and thereby duped more people

3/2/2011 5:42:09 PM

i love how the liberals are nutting all over the Koch brothers. Like, basically anything they can find they try to tie to those guys. It's hilarious. OH GOD, PEOPLE WITH MONEY USE THEIR MONEY!!!

3/2/2011 8:11:52 PM

Fortunately, here in NC we don't have public unions so we don't have any of these problems. Oh wait...

3/2/2011 10:39:43 PM

Quote :

"Non-union wages are the natural price floor for wages."

First off, -1 point for misusing the term price floor, secondly aren't unions to some degree a counterbalance to the natural market power a buyer has for wages? Ideally there would be many unions competing for membership.

3/2/2011 10:56:21 PM

Turns out Federal workers do NOT have collective bargaining rights.

lol, another whitehouse misstep

3/3/2011 8:28:18 AM

Quote :

"Turns out Federal workers do NOT have collective bargaining rights. lol, another whitehouse misstep"

News to me, since I work in HR for the Federal Gov. and we certainly do have a CBA with certain groups of employees. Unless these red manuals from AFGE are some sort of elaborate illusion. I could swear they're real and not holographic.

Looks like you need to re-evaluate where you get your information.

[Edited on March 3, 2011 at 10:23 AM. Reason : .]

3/3/2011 10:21:38 AM

Quote :

"OH GOD, PEOPLE WITH MONEY USE THEIR MONEY!!!"

rent-seeking leads to economic inefficiency dontcha know

3/3/2011 11:02:51 AM

Quote :

"News to me"

Keep paying your dues

Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, Carter signed it into law.

"The scope of mandatory collective bargaining for federal employees is limited to personnel employment practices only. Basic working conditions such as wages, hours of work, and employee benefits are instead subject to statutory provisions."

Maybe I could re-evaluate where I get my information if you could please provide me some information, other than your red manuals. Thanks

3/3/2011 11:03:19 AM