Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
Just to clarify, Jigawig isn't a Badger. SHE hails from Texas. Though SHE could easily pass for roughly 40% of Wisconsin's electorate
I LOL'd. But seriously, good for you kdogg and all the others participating in the protests. I'd been following this this story, but that video of Rep. Hintz was eye-opening. I didn't know that the bill was railroaded through the assembly like that.
Last Edit: Feb 22, 2011 23:04:08 GMT -5 by noeysasquatch - Back to Top
Now it turns out if they pass it they will lose 50 million in federal transportation funding. This keeps on getting better and better. Thanks for bringing this up jigawig.
Not sure what protests you guys are attending, or what the current events are up in WI, but if its about the government fighting the unions, then this is what I think:
Americans should not have the right to collective bargaining, working is a privilege. If they aren't paying you enough or providing good enough benefits, get a different job.
I like walmart's position on unions, they will close a store down before they will let workers organize a union.
Not sure what protests you guys are attending, or what the current events are up in WI, but if its about the government fighting the unions, then this is what I think:
Americans should not have the right to collective bargaining, working is a privilege. If they aren't paying you enough or providing good enough benefits, get a different job.
I like walmart's position on unions, they will close a store down before they will let workers organize a union.
You know the only reason we have 40 hour work weeks, Saturdays off, and paid vacation, safe places to work, maternity leave, and health benefits is because of Unions right? Through the early part of the 20th century they fought and sometimes died for them, and personally I think the men that did that are heroes.
Also here in America we have free speech, and free assembly. If you don't like the unions take the Wal mart approach and fire them all. Of course with no teachers, fireman, policemen, garbage men, transit workers etc... It is going to get rough.
Not sure what protests you guys are attending, or what the current events are up in WI, but if its about the government fighting the unions, then this is what I think:
Americans should not have the right to collective bargaining, working is a privilege. If they aren't paying you enough or providing good enough benefits, get a different job.
I like walmart's position on unions, they will close a store down before they will let workers organize a union.
You know the only reason we have 40 hour work weeks, Saturdays off, and paid vacation, safe places to work, maternity leave, and health benefits is because of Unions right? Through the early part of the 20th century they fought and sometimes died for them, and personally I think the men that did that are heroes.
Also here in America we have free speech, and free assembly. If you don't like the unions take the Wal mart approach and fire them all. Of course with no teachers, fireman, policemen, garbage men, transit workers etc... It is going to get rough.
Yes, unions accomplished alot during the industrial revolution, but Currently, the department of labor and the department of hours and wages are the ones protecting workers rights.
Lets consider this, why do teachers, or sanitation workers, or Mass Transit workers need a union? What needs to they have that are not covered by labor laws? Their unions exist for one purpose, greed. Their unions exist for them to get compensation and benefits that they wouldn't normally be entitled to.
Now for people with hazardous jobs, like firemen, policemen, iron workers, etc, a union who's goal is to make sure they have the proper protection from hazards, and a benefits plan in place that will compensate them or their families in the event of injury or death (Life insurance and Short Term / Long Term disability insurance) is completely understandable. But the union should have no part in negotiations of wages or standard benefits (medical / dential / vision insurance, retirement)
So what you are saying is that you support unions for people with dangerous jobs? Just not for teachers or garbage men? Now I am confused, a second ago you did not support any of them. I am sorry you think teachers do not deserve to be able to bargain as a group, but as far as I am concerned it is a basic right. They can not even go on strike in TN.
Also 2 of my best friends, and three family members are teachers. They all have a Masters degree, and I know around what they all make. The highest paid is still under 50k a year, and the lowest is around 35k. What special undeserved benefits do you think they are getting? Also the union protects them every time some self righteous parent tries to get them fired for not believing their child is a precious beautiful little snowflake. Just like the policemans union protects them from getting in trouble when they give a "important" person a DUI, they "didn't deserve". Seriously though please let me know what specific thing the Tn teachers union has done or gotten that you think is so unfair?
Post by Longtime and Frequent Poster on Feb 23, 2011 13:44:17 GMT -5
His describing the 60's protesters as a "bunch of 60's liberals" won't earn him any new fans. Also, I love that he puts a negative connotation on people who were protesting for civil rights/against Vietnam.
Really looking forward to his next press conference, though I'll be surprised if he really answers any questions about the "Koch" interview.
P.S. if he wants to lay off state workers, maybe he should think about his own aides who got duped in the first place and allowed this guy to talk directly to Walker.
So what you are saying is that you support unions for people with dangerous jobs? Just not for teachers or garbage men? Now I am confused, a second ago you did not support any of them. I am sorry you think teachers do not deserve to be able to bargain as a group, but as far as I am concerned it is a basic right. They can not even go on strike in TN.
Also 2 of my best friends, and three family members are teachers. They all have a Masters degree, and I know around what they all make. The highest paid is still under 50k a year, and the lowest is around 35k. What special undeserved benefits do you think they are getting? Also the union protects them every time some self righteous parent tries to get them fired for not believing their child is a precious beautiful little snowflake. Just like the policemans union protects them from getting in trouble when they give a "important" person a DUI, they "didn't deserve". Seriously though please let me know what specific thing the Tn teachers union has done or gotten that you think is so unfair?
I am against the idea of collective bargaining for salary and benefits, no matter who would be arguing. And what else do teacher's unions, or sanitation work's unions do?
Sure, some "self-righteous" parent with enough pull at the BOE could get a teacher in trouble, but you do understand that any public education system has a due process that usually requires the board to investigate the incident(s) and give the teacher a board of review. Afterwards, if the teacher feels he or she was treated unfairly, she can still lawyer up and sue. And all of that can and will happen whether there is a union or not.
Now, as I said before, those with hazardous jobs have the need for a union that will ensure that they are provided the proper equipment and protection for their job, and that in the event of an accident on the job, they will be properly compensated. HOWEVER, AS I SAID BEFORE, THESE UNIONS SHOULD HAVE NO PART IN BARGAINING FOR WAGES OR BASIC BENEFITS.
The fact that teachers are not allowed to go on strike in TN is a good thing.
I consider collective bargaining (with the ability to strike) to be terrorism-lite, think about it...
In both collective bargaining and terrorism, there are at least 2 sides that disagree about something.
In both collective bargaining and terrorism, there are potential causalities, be it hostages, people in and around target X, the general population of an area, or the clients of a particular business, there are always people who stand to loose something
In both collective bargaining and terrorism, there is a list of demands drawn up, whether its money, freeing someone from prison, a certain group of people leaving a specified area, an increase in pay, better medical insurance, or the reinstatement of a former employee
In both collective bargaining and terrorism, if the demands made are not met, the aforementioned potential causalities will suffer.
Collective bargaining is another name for bullying businesses around. And its bullshit. But that is just my opinion
Let me know if there is any part of this you dont understand.
I will say once again that I will never understand why people having some say in their working conditions is considered "terrorism" by some. To say "just get another job" is beyond unrealistic, especially in these poor economic times. And why would the next job be any better if employers could just collude to pay just enough to avoid starvation? Do you think that coal miners and factory workers in 1900 were just too stupid to look for another job? With no power, workers were left with no better jobs, just subsistence wages.
And to think the Government will protect worker is strange given the atmosphere on the right that government should leave business alone. Many even state such practices as child labor should not be illegal and left to the states. Do you actually believe that our corporate run government, which conservative wish to castrate further, would be any bulwark against abuse?
This is the same thinking (if you can call it thinking) that led to abhorrent and deadly working conditions and outright killings of any "agitators" in the pre-labor days of the US. If you do not believe it would happen again just look around the world where corporations like Coca-cola still hire "security" personal to murder any who speak against their brutal practices.
Maybe some of us have had it too good to realize how bad it can actually get. But to me, bringing some meager democratic ideals into the workplace is by no means terrorism or even terrorism-like. And the idea that an absolutely one-sided employment relationship with employers having absolute power is somehow moral and right is bizarre.
And to say that promoting ones self interest, or Greed as jhammett put it, is bad undermines the whole capitalist system as that is exactly where Capitalist system derives its momentum. And again to say that greed and self-interest are only good for one side (the corporate side) demonstrates blinders of a sort I cannot fathom.
Anything employers do in self interest is somehow good while anything employees do out of similar self interest is bad. This is eerily similar to feudal philosophy which believed God had set each of us with our role and to question the supreme authority of a ruler was heresy. I personally do not want a return to subservience to any master be he monarch or corporate,
I consider collective bargaining (with the ability to strike) to be terrorism-lite, think about it...
In both collective bargaining and terrorism, there are at least 2 sides that disagree about something.
In both collective bargaining and terrorism, there are potential causalities, be it hostages, people in and around target X, the general population of an area, or the clients of a particular business, there are always people who stand to loose something
In both collective bargaining and terrorism, there is a list of demands drawn up, whether its money, freeing someone from prison, a certain group of people leaving a specified area, an increase in pay, better medical insurance, or the reinstatement of a former employee
In both collective bargaining and terrorism, if the demands made are not met, the aforementioned potential causalities will suffer.
Collective bargaining is another name for bullying businesses around. And its bullhonkey. But that is just my opinion
Let me know if there is any part of this you dont understand.
Okay after my rant above I will address the specific of jhammett's post
Using jhammett's rather inept analogy any bargaining must be considered terrorism. When buying my house, I was a terrorist as The transaction met every one of jhammett's conditions. - 2 sides disagreed on price; both sides had "casualties" in their financial wellbeing both short and long term; we both had demands such as inspections, closing costs distribution, etc; and if we had not agreed, the aforementioned financial harm would have occurred.
So I apologize for my participation in such terrorist activities as negotiating the purchase of property.
As for bargaining-bullying analogy - Bullying implies an unfairly lopsided contest. I would submit that in the current employer-employee relationship the power rests primarily with the employer. Either that or unions are one very inept bully as their "bullying" of poor corporations has almost without exception led to wage and pension concession for the last 30 years. Any bully that wants to pick on me by giving in to the majority of my monetary demands can bully me anytime.
Last Edit: Feb 23, 2011 16:39:01 GMT -5 by troo - Back to Top
1 Do you really think the main purpose of Police/fire unions is death benefits? They cover everything from salary to seniority to the training recruits get.
2 When I look at your terrorist analogy it appears to be describing the act of negotiation. Do you think anyone who negotiates on anything is a terrorist?
3 You describe companies as being bullied by the process. With the right to free speech, and free assembly how would you propose we stop people from quitting in unison in order for the poor little corporation from getting beat up?
5 you seem to think all a teachers union does is negotiate salary, however they also tend to have a lot of say over the curriculum and learning process. Here is a fun fact.
Only five states do not have collective bargaining for educators and have deemed it illegal.
Those states and their ACT/SAT rankings are as follows:
South Carolina – 50th
North Carolina – 49th
Georgia – 48th
Texas – 47th
Virginia – 44th
If you are wondering, Wisconsin, with its collective bargaining for teachers, is ranked 2nd in the country.
(In Wisconsin, the new governor, Scott Walker, is trying to wipe out teachers’ collective bargaining rights.)
–From Maureen Downey, for the AJC Get Schooled blog
So there you go, here is where I am still confused about your posistion.
I will say once again that I will never understand why people having some say in their working conditions is considered "terrorism" by some. To say "just get another job" is beyond unrealistic, especially in these poor economic times. And why would the next job be any better if employers could just collude to pay just enough to avoid starvation? Do you think that coal miners and factory workers in 1900 were just too stupid to look for another job? With no power, workers were left with no better jobs, just subsistence wages.
Not everyone has a job, so if you are lucky enough to have one, I would consider it a privilege. And it is both ignorant and douche-like to get picky with your privileges.
Also, obviously, you understand the poor economic situation. People are buying less, businesses are selling less, businesses are hiring less, people are making less, yada yada... Ever consider that a union requesting a raise causes prices to go up, which inturn causes people to buy less, which inturn causes jobs to be more scarce?
And to think the Government will protect worker is strange given the atmosphere on the right that government should leave business alone. Many even state such practices as child labor should not be illegal and left to the states. Do you actually believe that our corporate run government, which conservative wish to castrate further, would be any bulwark against abuse?
Call your local Department of Hours and Wage office and tell them you think you are being cheated on your paycheck. See how quickly (if just) they will call down a federal audit on that business. Also, a lawyer only has to have 3 (former) employees seeking compensation to get a Class Action status on the lawsuit they file. I know all of this because last september, I had to sit through a 3.5 hour seminar on how not to get sued by your employees.
This is the same thinking (if you can call it thinking) that led to abhorrent and deadly working conditions and outright killings of any "agitators" in the pre-labor days of the US. If you do not believe it would happen again just look around the world where corporations like Coca-cola still hire "security" personal to murder any who speak against their brutal practices.
So long as the current labor laws stay in effect, and are enforced, there is no reason for a union.
Maybe some of us have had it too good to realize how bad it can actually get. But to me, bringing some meager democratic ideals into the workplace is by no means terrorism or even terrorism-like. And the idea that an absolutely one-sided employment relationship with employers having absolute power is somehow moral and right is bizarre.
Its their money you are working so hard for is it not? If it is truly their money, then they have the right to absolute power. If you feel you deserve a better rate of compensation, tell them, if they disagree, and they really believe that you deserve more, give them a 2 weeks notice and find a new job that will pay you more. If you can't find a job that pays you what you feel you are worth, then apparently you are not worth as much as you think.
And to say that promoting ones self interest, or Greed as jhammett put it, is bad undermines the whole capitalist system as that is exactly where Capitalist system derives its momentum. And again to say that greed and self-interest are only good for one side (the corporate side) demonstrates blinders of a sort I cannot fathom.
You are correct in that self interest does power capitalism, atleast most of the time. I work for a nonprofit mental health organization, who's focus is providing the necessary level of mental health care to local communities here in TN. I love my job, and even if offered a 25% raise, I would not leave, because I know that my work here goes towards making my community a healthier, safer, and better place. We employee approx 300 people (mostly clinical workers), and we do not have a union. I have good medical insurance, great dental, and great vision insurance, all 3 of which my employer pays 85% of the premium; life insurnace and long term disability insurance, both of which my employer pays 100% of the premium; and an excellent retirement plan, where my employer's contribution is 6%, and is not based on my contribution. You make it sound like that is not even possible without a union.
Sam Walton and Henry Ford accomplished great things, because they had, perhaps 2 of the most dedicated labor forces in history working for them. Neither of those labor forces had a union.
Anything employers do in self interest is somehow good while anything employees do out of similar self interest is bad. This is eerily similar to feudal philosophy which believed God had set each of us with our role and to question the supreme authority of a ruler was heresy. I personally do not want a return to subservience to any master be he monarch or corporate,
I never said that there aren't shitty employers, there are plenty of them, but I know for a fact that there are plenty of good employers too.
Have you ever sold anything on craigslist? Every time, they will try to bargain with you. What if you had no choice but to accept their bargain, regardless how ignorant it was? How would you feel? Like your being taken advantage of maybe?
Yes, there are times when a raise for the increasing cost of living in necessary, but there have also been plenty of times in history where wages skyrocketed up, because of the greed of the workers and the labor union.
When has any employer been forced to accept any and/or all unions demands? Never. In fact recent history clearly demonstrates that unions are much more likely to be forced to accept the demands of management.
I would argue that it is NOT all their money. Money is given to a company for goods and services provided by suppliers and employees. The companies are therefore indebted to these persons monetarily. To what degree this indebtedness is extended is negotiable (or terrorized by your definition.)
And there is no arguing with your preconceived ideas that employers should rightfully have all the power because they have all the money. This is a belief not a fact. If you truly believe this I wish you good luck in your employment. You will need it.
I consider collective bargaining (with the ability to strike) to be terrorism-lite, think about it...
In both collective bargaining and terrorism, there are at least 2 sides that disagree about something.
In both collective bargaining and terrorism, there are potential causalities, be it hostages, people in and around target X, the general population of an area, or the clients of a particular business, there are always people who stand to loose something
In both collective bargaining and terrorism, there is a list of demands drawn up, whether its money, freeing someone from prison, a certain group of people leaving a specified area, an increase in pay, better medical insurance, or the reinstatement of a former employee
In both collective bargaining and terrorism, if the demands made are not met, the aforementioned potential causalities will suffer.
Collective bargaining is another name for bullying businesses around. And its bullhonkey. But that is just my opinion
Let me know if there is any part of this you dont understand.
Okay after my rant above I will address the specific of jhammett's post
Using jhammett's rather inept analogy any bargaining must be considered terrorism. When buying my house, I was a terrorist as The transaction met every one of jhammett's conditions. - 2 sides disagreed on price; both sides had "casualties" in their financial wellbeing both short and long term; we both had demands such as inspections, closing costs distribution, etc; and if we had not agreed, the aforementioned financial harm would have occurred.
So I apologize for my participation in such terrorist activities as negotiating the purchase of property.
As for bargaining-bullying analogy - Bullying implies an unfairly lopsided contest. I would submit that in the current employer-employee relationship the power rests primarily with the employer. Either that or unions are one very inept bully as their "bullying" of poor corporations has almost without exception led to wage and pension concession for the last 30 years. Any bully that wants to pick on me by giving in to the majority of my monetary demands can bully me anytime.
That post is ignorant, but here we go.
No, bargaining when buying a house is not a terrorist, but it is also not an act of COLLECTIVE bargaining. That word "collective" was there, I promise, maybe you just didnt see it the dozen times it was mentioned, or maybe you dont understand the term "collective bargaining"
Also, the labor union is the bully in my defination. Based on my arguement, I thought that would have been clear enough. And my personal definition of bullying is "to use force tactics to intimidate a person or party" Threatening to strike if your demands are not met = bullying
When has any employer been forced to accept any and/or all unions demands? Never. In fact recent history clearly demonstrates that unions are much more likely to be forced to accept the demands of management.
I would argue that it is NOT all their money. Money is given to a company for goods and services provided by suppliers and employees. The companies are therefore indebted to these persons monetarily. To what degree this indebtedness is extended is negotiable (or terrorized by your definition.)
And there is no arguing with your preconceived ideas that employers should rightfully have all the power because they have all the money. This is a belief not a fact. If you truly believe this I wish you good luck in your employment. You will need it.
My employment has been steady since I was 16, so I would say I dont need your luck.
Sure, the company owe your money assuming you are working for them, but it IS still their money, based on ownership.
And I am sure that plenty of employers who could not survive down time have bent to the unions demands in the presence of a strike.
Still unclear. My example meets every condition set for terrorism by your definition. Adding a single word, "collective", does not change your definition or your conditions.
And if by your definition bullying is "to use force tactics to intimidate a person or party" than corporations have used the "force" of monetary reprisal to bully unions for decades, "forcing" wage and pension concessions with the threat of firings or lay-offs.
Last Edit: Feb 23, 2011 17:29:46 GMT -5 by troo - Back to Top
1 Do you really think the main purpose of Police/fire unions is death benefits? They cover everything from salary to seniority to the training recruits get.
Well around here, salary and seniority go together. Training could be considered equipment / protection, and if not, I will start including that. And I didn't just say death benefits, if a fire fighter is running through a burning building and breaks his ankle, he should be compensated for the time he spends recovering, and the union could make sure of that.
2 When I look at your terrorist analogy it appears to be describing the act of negotiation. Do you think anyone who negotiates on anything is a terrorist?
Again, is said atleast 5 times in that analogy "COLLECTIVE BARGAINING", which is always defined as negotiation between an employer and trade union
3 You describe companies as being bullied by the process. With the right to free speech, and free assembly how would you propose we stop people from quitting in unison in order for the poor little corporation from getting beat up?
Nothing stops this, and that is fine. If working conditions are really that bad, then the employer has that one coming.
5 you seem to think all a teachers union does is negotiate salary, however they also tend to have a lot of say over the curriculum and learning process. Here is a fun fact.
I believe that parents of the children in the schools should have the say on the curriculum and learning process, not the bureaucrats. You also have to figure that in the states you listed without the CBA, the teaching jobs are much less desired because of the lacking compensation and benefit plan. And teachers, like the majority of people in the world, are attracted to bigger numbers. This means there will be fewer good, experienced teachers to fill those jobs.
When has any employer been forced to accept any and/or all unions demands? Never. In fact recent history clearly demonstrates that unions are much more likely to be forced to accept the demands of management.
I would argue that it is NOT all their money. Money is given to a company for goods and services provided by suppliers and employees. The companies are therefore indebted to these persons monetarily. To what degree this indebtedness is extended is negotiable (or terrorized by your definition.)
And there is no arguing with your preconceived ideas that employers should rightfully have all the power because they have all the money. This is a belief not a fact. If you truly believe this I wish you good luck in your employment. You will need it.
My employment has been steady since I was 16, so I would say I dont need your luck.
Sure, the company owe your money assuming you are working for them, but it IS still their money, based on ownership.
And I am sure that plenty of employers who could not survive down time have bent to the unions demands in the presence of a strike.
Working involves a social contract it is not as you put it a "privilege". If companies can not get or keep workers then they will not be in business at all. A union exploits this sure, but at the same time it also stops exploitation from the other side as well.
As to "collective" bargaining being the tactic of terrorism, this is probably the most ignorant thing you have said all day. That guy on craigslist can take your price or not nobody forces him. But it cuts both ways he is not allowed to make you buy it either. Without unions the odds that corporations would treat workers fairly is pretty small. Even at non union shops like Nissan in Smyrna they pay union scale and give the same types of benefits, because if they don't they will have a union on their hands.
On a individual basis you can not negotiate with a large business at all. You can accept it or quit, but the same is true for them they can accept it, and negotiate. Or they can fire everyone and start over. I do not see why you think a business should have advantages a person does not. At the end of the day negotiation does everyone a benefit as I doubt most unions want the company they work for to go bankrupt. This is the social contract that labor unions formed for us, and that is the function they still serve.
Also on the subject of teachers, I am still interested to know what outrageous demands teachers unions have been making? It is still almost the lowest paying job you need a Masters degree to get.
5 you seem to think all a teachers union does is negotiate salary, however they also tend to have a lot of say over the curriculum and learning process. Here is a fun fact.
I believe that parents of the children in the schools should have the say on the curriculum and learning process, not the bureaucrats. You also have to figure that in the states you listed without the CBA, the teaching jobs are much less desired because of the lacking compensation and benefit plan. And teachers, like the majority of people in the world, are attracted to bigger numbers. This means there will be fewer good, experienced teachers to fill those jobs.[/quote]
So you are saying when a strong teachers union negotiates good pay and a strong contract that students tend to do a lot better? Well bring on the teachers unions then. Also I am guessing you do not have kids, because I sure as hell do not want the curriculum decided on the basis of what all the parents want. Which ones decide?
Still unclear. My example meets every condition set for terrorism by your definition. Adding a single word, "collective", does not change your definition or your conditions.
And if by your definition bullying is "to use force tactics to intimidate a person or party" than corporations have used the "force" of monetary reprisal to bully unions for decades, "forcing" wage and pension concessions with the threat of firings or lay-offs.
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING is ALWAYS defined as negotiating between employers and a trade union, how many times do I have to say that. Seriously?
And yeah, the unions are the ones being bullied, corporations have soooooooo much power against the unions, they can, lets see... Negotiate, and um, well? You claim that they can fire / lay off people, but if they do that unjustly, the union can simply respond with a strike
A union can shut a business down with a strike, that is bullying.
You see it the way you want to see it I guess, but quit arguing these points they could not be any clearer.
5 you seem to think all a teachers union does is negotiate salary, however they also tend to have a lot of say over the curriculum and learning process. Here is a fun fact.
I believe that parents of the children in the schools should have the say on the curriculum and learning process, not the bureaucrats. You also have to figure that in the states you listed without the CBA, the teaching jobs are much less desired because of the lacking compensation and benefit plan. And teachers, like the majority of people in the world, are attracted to bigger numbers. This means there will be fewer good, experienced teachers to fill those jobs.
So you are saying when a strong teachers union negotiates good pay and a strong contract that students tend to do a lot better? Well bring on the teachers unions then. Also I am guessing you do not have kids, because I sure as hell do not want the curriculum decided on the basis of what all the parents want. Which ones decide? [/quote]
Or get rid of the teachers unions all together.
No I dont have kids, but I dont see what I wouldnt like about the parents choosing the curriculum. It seems fair. And the bad parents likely do not care about their kids education enough to get involved.
jhammett - It is obvious we will never agree and likely never understand each others thought processes. So be it. If you truly believe that a lopsided employment relationship where employers hold all the power is best, I cannot convince you otherwise.
For centuries, the prevailing western thought has been that adversarial systems yield the most just results. We believe that courts find justice best if both sides are equally represented and not in the old Roman style where only prosecutors present evidence. We believe that markets thrive best through competition, and not when corporate monopolies dominate. We believe governments work best with multiple parties and not single party systems (or the more lopsided monarchies/dictatorships.) I believe this principle also applies to employment areas where shared power yields something more akin to justice.
Maybe you are right and this is the one area where monopoly of power serves all best. As I stated previously, this concept is outside my comprehension.
I believe that parents of the children in the schools should have the say on the curriculum and learning process, not the bureaucrats. You also have to figure that in the states you listed without the CBA, the teaching jobs are much less desired because of the lacking compensation and benefit plan. And teachers, like the majority of people in the world, are attracted to bigger numbers. This means there will be fewer good, experienced teachers to fill those jobs.
So you are saying when a strong teachers union negotiates good pay and a strong contract that students tend to do a lot better? Well bring on the teachers unions then. Also I am guessing you do not have kids, because I sure as hell do not want the curriculum decided on the basis of what all the parents want. Which ones decide?
Or get rid of the teachers unions all together.
No I dont have kids, but I dont see what I wouldnt like about the parents choosing the curriculum. It seems fair. And the bad parents likely do not care about their kids education enough to get involved.[/quote]
So get rid of the Teachers unions all together, then conditions will be so bad nobody with a brain will even want to be a teacher? Also there are for instance plenty of involved parents who would like my kids taught history out of the bible, that muslims are evil, etc... I am glad I do not have to go shout them down.
Still unclear. My example meets every condition set for terrorism by your definition. Adding a single word, "collective", does not change your definition or your conditions.
And if by your definition bullying is "to use force tactics to intimidate a person or party" than corporations have used the "force" of monetary reprisal to bully unions for decades, "forcing" wage and pension concessions with the threat of firings or lay-offs.
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING is ALWAYS defined as negotiating between employers and a trade union, how many times do I have to say that. Seriously?
And yeah, the unions are the ones being bullied, corporations have soooooooo much power against the unions, they can, lets see... Negotiate, and um, well? You claim that they can fire / lay off people, but if they do that unjustly, the union can simply respond with a strike
A union can shut a business down with a strike, that is bullying.
You see it the way you want to see it I guess, but quit arguing these points they could not be any clearer.
No it is equality, the company can fire people causing them quite possibly large amounts of harm. The union can strike or quit causing the company quite possibly large amounts of harm. With a balance of power both sides have a vested interest in negotiating. Do you really think any one would have any benefits if companies were never forced to negotiate with their labor force.
What about when manufacturers strike because companies are sending jobs over seas? What about coal miners striking over unsafe working conditions? The list of the good that Unions do/have done far outweighs the idea that teamsters get paid to eat lunch or whatever it is you are trying to say.
My employment has been steady since I was 16, so I would say I dont need your luck.
Sure, the company owe your money assuming you are working for them, but it IS still their money, based on ownership.
And I am sure that plenty of employers who could not survive down time have bent to the unions demands in the presence of a strike.
Working involves a social contract it is not as you put it a "privilege". If companies can not get or keep workers then they will not be in business at all. A union exploits this sure, but at the same time it also stops exploitation from the other side as well.
As to "collective" bargaining being the tactic of terrorism, this is probably the most ignorant thing you have said all day. That guy on craigslist can take your price or not nobody forces him. But it cuts both ways he is not allowed to make you buy it either. Without unions the odds that corporations would treat workers fairly is pretty small. Even at non union shops like Nissan in Smyrna they pay union scale and give the same types of benefits, because if they don't they will have a union on their hands.
On a individual basis you can not negotiate with a large business at all. You can accept it or quit, but the same is true for them they can accept it, and negotiate. Or they can fire everyone and start over. I do not see why you think a business should have advantages a person does not. At the end of the day negotiation does everyone a benefit as I doubt most unions want the company they work for to go bankrupt. This is the social contract that labor unions formed for us, and that is the function they still serve.
Also on the subject of teachers, I am still interested to know what outrageous demands teachers unions have been making? It is still almost the lowest paying job you need a Masters degree to get.
I know off hand 5 people that are looking for a job. That was how I meant it was a privilege.
The whole terrorism analogy is pretty accurate if you ask me. I am not saying that you are a terrorist for being part of a union, just comparing the actions and outcomes.
As far as the guy on craigslist goes. My statment was what if he haggled you down quite a bit, and you had no choice but to take it. Example: Lets say times are really rough, and you need money for food. you are selling a TV that you bought last year for $2000, you are asking $800 for it, and you feel thats fair. Now lets say this guy offered $650, and comes to look at it, then decides that he will only pay $350 for it. Usually you would tell him to go fuck himself with a knife, but your kids are sick and starving and you have to feed them, so you take the money. At the end of this transaction, do you feel like you were taken advantage of?
Sure, some exploitation may exist without unions, but only if the employees let it happen, they can always quit. And even the biggest, most resilient businesses can survive their entire work force quiting. As you said " If companies can not get or keep workers then they will not be in business at all"
And by the way, the majority of teachers in my highschool were only a bachelors degree. There were 2 Math teachers, 3 science teachers, 2 or 3 English teachers, 1 History teacher, 1 art teacher, and 1 foreign language teacher with Masters degrees. Now all of them may have had the goal to become a Master's degree, but only a few of them were when i went there.
Edit, technicially there were 4 english teachers with a Masters when I graduated, but one of them was literally bat-shit crazy. She was a brilliant women, but had suffered major brain damage (as well as physical disfigurement) in a car accident the year after she graduated college
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING is ALWAYS defined as negotiating between employers and a trade union, how many times do I have to say that. Seriously?
And yeah, the unions are the ones being bullied, corporations have soooooooo much power against the unions, they can, lets see... Negotiate, and um, well? You claim that they can fire / lay off people, but if they do that unjustly, the union can simply respond with a strike
A union can shut a business down with a strike, that is bullying.
You see it the way you want to see it I guess, but quit arguing these points they could not be any clearer.
No it is equality, the company can fire people causing them quite possibly large amounts of harm. The union can strike or quit causing the company quite possibly large amounts of harm. With a balance of power both sides have a vested interest in negotiating. Do you really think any one would have any benefits if companies were never forced to negotiate with their labor force.
What about when manufacturers strike because companies are sending jobs over seas? What about coal miners striking over unsafe working conditions? The list of the good that Unions do/have done far outweighs the idea that teamsters get paid to eat lunch or whatever it is you are trying to say.
A company cannot fire every employee, but a union can make every employee strike. Not quite equality IMO.
Also, manufactures are usually the ones sending jobs over seas. Their current labor force may strike, but it just give them a better reason to move producing factories somewhere else.
Also, Coal miners have hazardous jobs, and should be entitled to a union that ensures that they have the proper equipment / training to do the job, and can also ensure that working conditions are safe.
Unions, in the past, have accomplished alot, I am not saying otherwise. But with current labor laws, they only exist for monetary purposes (or hazardous jobs issues), and I just dont agree with that.
I loved that "Koch" chat with Walker. I think it really showed that he was anti-union and was more out to bust up the unions rather than balance the budget. The fact that the unions said they would be willing to pay for benefits but just wanted to keep their collective bargaining power I think shows that this wasn't about balancing the budget.
I'm not really a pro-union or an anti-union type of guy. I see the need for unions. But I also see how they can wield too much power. And I think we need to look at things on a case by case basis and not just say "All unions are great" or "All unions suck." I think in terms of the UAW, they really screwed things up for Ford and GM and made it hard for them to compete with the Japanese. I think that's an example for how unions can be bad. But we all know how corporations are driven by the bottom line so I can see why some industries need to unionize. There just needs to be a balance between workers and employers.