Discussion: All Things Union

[StorminNorman]

Of course we have the right to strike. And if an employer fires striking workers, good luck replacing and training your entire work force while also not producing a profit.

You have the right to stop working or to quit, but if you stop working the employer enjoys the right to fire you too.

 

[dnno1]

This seems a little overboard, but IMO, essential public employees shouldn't be allowed to strike. Public employee unions alos deserve a bit more scrutiny considering how they drag down states like New York and have even shut down nations like France.

I think that legislators shouldn't be allowed to do that.

Although I can't argue that point, it does happen. The ability to strike is a natural right and the only way to circumvent it is to have the person give that right up. If there is a no strike clause in their contract, then that is where they wouldn't have the right to strike. This is what happened in the mid 1950's with the airtraffic controllers union. Some 20 some odd years later, they struck and Regan fired them for breach of contract (in a nutshell). That was plausible since they were under contract not to strike (and had given up that right in the process).

If they are private sector employees, they can strike as many times as they want to for all I care. But considering how we need police officers, firemen, teachers, etc., public sector employees shouldn't be allowed to strike. Also considering how public sector employee strikes have crippled several European nations for days on end, is another reason why they shouldn't be allowed.

That said, considering that private sector employers don't pay in IOUs, usually have to give their employees notice that they're shutting down, etc. The government should be held to the same standards. And in return for outlawing public sector employee strikes, they should treat their employees like decent human beings so that there would be no reason to strike to begin with.

Sounds like common sense to me.

There's such a thing as scabs. Even calling in the national guard would suffice for Police protection. Anyway, there are laws on the books in most municipalities that prohibit public servants such as policemen form striking (or at least encouraging them to), so that point is kind of moot.

Actually, this isn't about the right to strike but rather the right to collectively bargain with your employer. It is a given that public employees can not strike by law. What they do have is a right to collective bargaining, which is something Governor Scott Walker wants to take away. The employees are protesting (not striking) about this and it seems like the Governor is using the National Guard to intimidate them.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Of course we have the right to strike. And if an employer fires striking workers, good luck replacing and training your entire work force while also not producing a profit.

I really wouldn't call the ability to strike a right for many of the reasons that Norm pointed out, but firing striking workers is rather stupid for the reasons you mention. Also, I would like to point out that nowadays, most strikes are just plain stupid. Like the WGA Strike or my constant mentions of French strikes.

 

[bell110]

You have the right to stop working or to quit, but if you stop working the employer enjoys the right to fire you too.

Hence the right to strike.

I really wouldn't call the ability to strike a right for many of the reasons that Norm pointed out, but firing striking workers is rather stupid for the reasons you mention. Also, I would like to point out that nowadays, most strikes are just plain stupid. Like the WGA Strike or my constant mentions of French strikes.

Of course it's a right. Nobody can force you to work. That's the beauty of striking. It helps the employees get the wages they deserve.

 

[Kelly]

Hence the right to strike.



Of course it's a right. Nobody can force you to work. That's the beauty of striking. It helps the employees get the wages they deserve.

Unfortunately this has changed over the decades, it is now used to get the employees the wages, and retirement they don't deserve...and why they one of the main problems in our economy today.

There is a difference between deserving a paycheck, and getting what you want but don't necessarily deserve, and in many cases is far above what the non-union workers doing the same job get...

 

[DACrowe]

This seems a little overboard, but IMO, essential public employees shouldn't be allowed to strike. Public employee unions alos deserve a bit more scrutiny considering how they drag down states like New York and have even shut down nations like France.

Agreed for certain positions. 1919 Boston showed why communities cannot afford police officers to go on strike. However, that responsibility shouldn't be used as a way to abuse and neglect the needs of those public servants.

 

[Kelly]

I understand that if workers, ESPECIALLY in the early 1900s, and the horrible working conditions, pay, etc...strike....but AS as public servant, I have a hard time reconciling using a "strike" to get higher pay....it just doesn't mesh with me...

 

[dnno1]

Packers Support Wis. Public Employees

Members of the reigning Super Bowl champs have come out in strong support of the state’s public employees and in opposition to Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s attacks on the state’s public servants, which include threats to call out the National Guard if they strike or protest his extreme measures.
In a statement issued moments ago, current and former members of the Green Bay Packers say it’s “teamwork on and off the field that makes the Packers and Wisconsin great.”

It is the same dedication of our public workers every day that makes Wisconsin run. They are the teachers, nurses and child care workers who take care of us and our families. But now in an unprecedented political attack, Gov. Walker is trying to take away their right to have a voice and bargain at work.
​

Further, the letter points out that “the right to negotiate wages and benefits is a fundamental underpinning of our middle class.

When workers join together it serves as a check on corporate power and helps ALL workers by raising community standards. Wisconsin’s long standing tradition of allowing public-sector workers to have a voice on the job has worked for the state since the 1930s. It has created greater consistency in the relationship between labor and management and a shared approach to public work.
These public workers are Wisconsin’s champions every single day and we urge the governor and the state legislature to not take away their rights.
​

Signers of the statement include: Curtis Fuller, Charles Jordan, Bob Long, Steve Okoniewski, Brady Popping, Jason Spitz and Chris Jackie.

 

[dnno1]

I understand that if workers, ESPECIALLY in the early 1900s, and the horrible working conditions, pay, etc...strike....but AS as public servant, I have a hard time reconciling using a "strike" to get higher pay....it just doesn't mesh with me...

Once again, this issue is not about the right to strike. It is about the right to bargain collectively, something that Gov. Scott Walker is trying to take away from the public employees.

 

[Kelly]

True, but Bell's post was specifically talking about "striking" therefore that was the direction I took it...Unions have their place, they have simply over stepped their bounds is my stand on the issue...

I have just never really been able to feel ok about "public servants" striking...as a public servant myself, I just don't get it. Hence my post...

 

[bell110]

Unfortunately this has changed over the decades, it is now used to get the employees the wages, and retirement they don't deserve...and why they one of the main problems in our economy today.

There is a difference between deserving a paycheck, and getting what you want but don't necessarily deserve, and in many cases is far above what the non-union workers doing the same job get...

But who says they don't deserve higher wages? Isn't saying an employee doesn't deserve higher wages like saying corporations don't deserve higher profits? Yet people will quickly jump to the defense of companies when others suggest they don't deserve those profits, especially if those profits come at the cost of it's employees receiving better wages.

I understand that if workers, ESPECIALLY in the early 1900s, and the horrible working conditions, pay, etc...strike....but AS as public servant, I have a hard time reconciling using a "strike" to get higher pay....it just doesn't mesh with me...

So what would you do if you felt you weren't getting paid enough? I assume you are content with your salary right now, but what if in ten years you never get any raise or you even get a pay cut while the cost of living rises. Would you seriously just shrug your shoulders and say, "This is what I deserve"? Would you quit teaching after investing so much time in the field?

As it is, a lot of people think teacher make more than they deserve. I would like to see all teachers quit, then see how much people think they deserve when parents have to take time off from their work to watch their own kids.

True, but Bell's post was specifically talking about "striking" therefore that was the direction I took it...Unions have their place, they have simply over stepped their bounds is my stand on the issue...

I have just never really been able to feel ok about "public servants" striking...as a public servant myself, I just don't get it. Hence my post...

I was just commenting that people have a right to strike, regardless of this specific issue.

Public servants need to make a living too. What is there to get?

 

[hippie_hunter]

Nobody can force you to work.

With that logic, you don't have the right to a job then. If you want to get paid, then you pretty much HAVE to work.

That's the beauty of striking. It helps the employees get the wages they deserve.

Back in the early 1900's strikes were necessary to get much needed wage increases and better treatmen, but today it really isn't necessary. This isn't the early 1900's, like many pro-labor arguments like to bring up. It's 2011, and it is a completely different economy, with completely different conditions.

An employer has to provide safe working conditions or else the local government will come down on them thanks to the Department of Labor. An employer has to offer competitive wages because it is much easier to leave and find a new job than it was in the early 1900's.

That is big labor's biggest problem, still thinking it's 1911 as opposed to 2011. The second is striking over idiotic things like "Internet Money" in the WGA Strike or opposing cuts in the benefits that are directly responsible for causing GM and Chrysler to go under when the UAW striked when they were about to go bankrup.

 

[dnno1]

With that logic, you don't have the right to a job then. If you want to get paid, then you pretty much HAVE to work.


Back in the early 1900's strikes were necessary to get much needed wage increases and better treatmen, but today it really isn't necessary. This isn't the early 1900's, like many pro-labor arguments like to bring up. It's 2011, and it is a completely different economy, with completely different conditions.

An employer has to provide safe working conditions or else the local government will come down on them thanks to the Department of Labor. An employer has to offer competitive wages because it is much easier to leave and find a new job than it was in the early 1900's.

That is big labor's biggest problem, still thinking it's 1911 as opposed to 2011. The second is striking over idiotic things like "Internet Money" in the WGA Strike or opposing cuts in the benefits that are directly responsible for causing GM and Chrysler to go under when the UAW striked when they were about to go bankrup.

First of all, you do have a right to work as much as you have the right not to. An employer has an obligation to consider a person for employment if he has a need for labor. What an employer doesn't have is a right to abuse or exploit their employees through unfair compensation.

I am noticing that some of you are citing the early 1900's as a justification that doesn't apply today. The truth of the matter is that nothing has really changed. The right to strike still exists and has been preserved by Federal law for most employees. Although this is the case employers still abuse employees and have leveraged existing laws to circumvent labor. How so? By shipping jobs overseas, employing illegal immigrants, brainwashing the public through the media, and the capitalization of the Right to Work laws in some states, employers have managed to dwindle down unions to the numbers that we have today (about 7% of the workforce). It is not because unions have outlived themselves.

Nothing has changed. Because there are new media via the Internet, the opportunity to exploit labor by garnering profit without proper compensation through the medium is there (that was something that wasn't included in their prior WGA and SAG collective bargaining agreements). It is not "silly Internet money" as you claim, since the enterprise could be worth billions of dollars and could actually obsolete the other existing forms of media formats. The WGA, SAG, and other unions clearly saw that and fought for their due compensation. Not so much for the more established writers and actors, but more so for the little less known ones. These kinds of abuses still go on as to why there needs to be some type of representation at the bargaining table for labor. Now in the case of the Wisconsin State Employees, Governor Scott Walker, wants to eliminate their right to collective bargaining. This only means that the State can cut their pay and benefits without legal recourse nor say so from state employees (a la the early 1900's). How can somebody say that times have really changed when you can clearly see that they haven't?

 

[Hound55]

Hup, sorry. The thread title confused me...

 

[bell110]

With that logic, you don't have the right to a job then. If you want to get paid, then you pretty much HAVE to work.

You don't have a right to a job. But employers don't have a right to cheap labor.

Think of striking like haggling over a car. You don't have to buy the car for what it's priced and the selling doesn't have to sell it for what you want. You both come to an agreement for what you both think the car is worth. If employees don't think they are getting fairly compensated, the go on strike. If the employer feels they are asking too much, they just don't meet the demands. If they come to an agreement, that is what they both feel the employees are really worth.

Back in the early 1900's strikes were necessary to get much needed wage increases and better treatmen, but today it really isn't necessary. This isn't the early 1900's, like many pro-labor arguments like to bring up. It's 2011, and it is a completely different economy, with completely different conditions.

An employer has to provide safe working conditions or else the local government will come down on them thanks to the Department of Labor. An employer has to offer competitive wages because it is much easier to leave and find a new job than it was in the early 1900's.

Even in the 1900's people didn't like unions, for the same reason people don't like them now. Having a different economy now doesn't make it any less necessary for workers to get just compensation. As for finding a new job, sure it's easy if you want to be a cashier at Wal-Mart, but for a skilled tradesperson, making a lateral career move might not be that easy.

That is big labor's biggest problem, still thinking it's 1911 as opposed to 2011. The second is striking over idiotic things like "Internet Money" in the WGA Strike or opposing cuts in the benefits that are directly responsible for causing GM and Chrysler to go under when the UAW striked when they were about to go bankrup.

The internet money isn't silly, it's companies making great profits off the skills of the writers using a new medium without the writers getting their fair share. As for GM and Chrysler going under, well that's the price you pay when dealing with unions. It's not a perfect system.

 

[chaseter]

If they are private sector employees, they can strike as many times as they want to for all I care. But considering how we need police officers, firemen, teachers, etc., public sector employees shouldn't be allowed to strike. Also considering how public sector employee strikes have crippled several European nations for days on end, is another reason why they shouldn't be allowed.

That said, considering that private sector employers don't pay in IOUs, usually have to give their employees notice that they're shutting down, etc. The government should be held to the same standards. And in return for outlawing public sector employee strikes, they should treat their employees like decent human beings so that there would be no reason to strike to begin with.

Sounds like common sense to me.

Public sector employee unions should be illegal. We can thank President Kennedy for allowing them to unionize in the 60s. That has led to public employees making more on average than private employees. It has led to an increased scope and size of government. Lastly, it has led to the financial ruin of a lot of our states.

I am still waiting for someone to tell me some positive things that unions have done in oh, the past 3 decades and what relevance they have to today.

 

[dnno1]

Public sector employee unions should be illegal. We can thank President Kennedy for allowing them to unionize in the 60s. That has led to public employees making more on average than private employees. It has led to an increased scope and size of government. Lastly, it has led to the financial ruin of a lot of our states.

I am still waiting for someone to tell me some positive things that unions have done in oh, the past 3 decades and what relevance they have to today.

That is not altogether true. If you were to look at each job description line by line you will see that private sector jobs pay more on average. This is why I chose to take a job in the private sector out of college. Starting salaries were higher than for an equivalent public sector position. Now if you want to include the folks who flip burgers or manufacture products (which public servants don't normally do) that might skew the average some, but on the most part your claim is misleading.

Edit Another misnomer is to say that something is illegal when it is written in the law. It is legal to make executive orders so long as they apply to the staff of the executive branch of government.

 

[chaseter]

That is not altogether true. If you were to look at each job description line by line you will see that private sector jobs pay more on average.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-04-federal-pay_N.htm

Edit Another misnomer is to say that something is illegal when it is written in the law. It is legal to make executive orders so long as they apply to the staff of the executive branch of government.

It should be illegal for public employees to unionize. When you look at the history of why they were started, to help Mayor Wagner in 1958 get re-elected, shows that there is no point to them and they were born out of corruption. They are still collectively a largely corrupt organization in bed with politicians. All of those under the table exchanges have resulted in exorbitant pensions that have sent many states into financial ruin. Unions dues are spent on re-election campaigns for politicians that will give them the most. JFK allowed federal employees to unionize in the 60s. So pretty much public employee unions were 'legally' bought votes, which is pretty disgusting. We all can thank unions for having a hand in ruining this country like unions did in many other countries.

 

[dnno1]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-04-federal-pay_N.htm

http://factcheck.org/2010/12/are-federal-workers-overpaid/

Debunked. Sure, you can show a lower average if your population shows job descriptions that are entirely different from those of government employee, but try again when you compare job description by job description.

It should be illegal for public employees to unionize. When you look at the history of why they were started, to help Mayor Wagner in 1958 get re-elected, shows that there is no point to them and they were born out of corruption. They are still collectively a largely corrupt organization in bed with politicians. All of those under the table exchanges have resulted in exorbitant pensions that have sent many states into financial ruin. Unions dues are spent on re-election campaigns for politicians that will give them the most. JFK allowed federal employees to unionize in the 60s. So pretty much public employee unions were 'legally' bought votes, which is pretty disgusting. We all can thank unions for having a hand in ruining this country like unions did in many other countries.

It is not illegal and it is a constitutional right (the right to association). In addition, the 6th, 10th and the 14th amendment guarantees that that right should not be taken away from anyone. You are sadly mistaken my friend and you have been listening to the Republicons for far too long. It is time you started seeking the truth because lies that you have been listening to will only lead you to your downfall.

 

[hippie_hunter]

You don't have a right to a job. But employers don't have a right to cheap labor.

That depends on what you view as cheap.

Think of striking like haggling over a car. You don't have to buy the car for what it's priced and the selling doesn't have to sell it for what you want. You both come to an agreement for what you both think the car is worth. If employees don't think they are getting fairly compensated, the go on strike. If the employer feels they are asking too much, they just don't meet the demands. If they come to an agreement, that is what they both feel the employees are really worth.

It really is best when both sides come to an agreement than one side simply striking and the other being Ebeneezer Scrooge. Due to the more recent actions of unions and more competition from the work force due to overseas labor and illegal immigration, strikes are just becoming less and less effective.

Even in the 1900's people didn't like unions, for the same reason people don't like them now. Having a different economy now doesn't make it any less necessary for workers to get just compensation. As for finding a new job, sure it's easy if you want to be a cashier at Wal-Mart, but for a skilled tradesperson, making a lateral career move might not be that easy.

Not really, unions are being disliked today for vastly different reasons than the reasons back in the early 1900's. Back in the early 1900's unions were villainized due to potential socialist ties. Nowadays unions have become disliked and even losing lots of influence to the point of dying out because unions such as the UAW being one of the top reasons why General Motors and Chrysler declared bankruptcy which led to their takeover by the government, players associations in professional sports leagues going on strike demanding more money even though they are paid very comfortably, teachers unions being very stubborn in regards to firing teachers, etc. Dislike towards unions today comes from the actions of such unions as opposed to dislike towards unions in the 1900's coming from absurd Red Scares.

The internet money isn't silly, it's companies making great profits off the skills of the writers using a new medium without the writers getting their fair share. As for GM and Chrysler going under, well that's the price you pay when dealing with unions. It's not a perfect system.

The internet money thing was silly because right now, media corporations such as Time Warner, Viacom, NBC Universal, and News Corporation are still trying to find ways to monetize the Internet for profit. The situation has improved somewhat as opposed to a couple of years ago when the WGA strike occurred, but overall, media conglomerates are still pretty clueless on how to deal with the Internet. Once it's all settled and figured out, then they should be discussing on how to share the revenues created, but when the WGA went on strike, it was absolutely absurd when the media conglomerates really weren't making a whole lot of money to begin with.

 

[dnno1]

Apparently the Democratic State Senators have gone on strike:

State Democrats absent for vote as Wisconsin budget protests swell

 

[SentinelMind]

Teacher unions are the biggest obstacle and threat for meaningful education reform.

Those Democrats are cowards, imo.

 

[dnno1]

Teacher unions are the biggest obstacle and threat for meaningful education reform.

Those Democrats are cowards, imo.

No, they are on strike. Until the Republicans meet their demands, the will be absent from the capitol and the state senate will not be able to form a quorum. That's not cowardice, it's political gamesmanship.

 

[SentinelMind]

If they had striked inside their own state, a law officer would be required to pick them up to obtain quorum. Fleeing the state is cowardice. Do your job or resign.

 

[chaseter]

http://factcheck.org/2010/12/are-federal-workers-overpaid/

Debunked. Sure, you can show a lower average if your population shows job descriptions that are entirely different from those of government employee, but try again when you compare job description by job description.

Factcheck.org is notoriously left wing. It even says in the article that this is a GOP talking point and now here is the truth! But then there is one little flaw in your factcheck.org link. They want to leave out pension, health insurance, and other benefits that WE AS THE TAX PAYER, pay for. So yes that should be counted in with their salary. They are getting publicly funded retirement. They are getting publicly funded health care. But, factcheck.org doesn't want to include that to say that poor public workers are making less than private sector workers so the big bad GOP is wrong. The private sector worker is paying more into their own retirement and insurance than public sector workers. So yes, that should be included in their salary.

It is not illegal and it is a constitutional right (the right to association). In addition, the 6th, 10th and the 14th amendment guarantees that that right should not be taken away from anyone. You are sadly mistaken my friend and you have been listening to the Republicons for far too long. It is time you started seeking the truth because lies that you have been listening to will only lead you to your downfall.

Name me one thing that public employee unions have done in the past 20 years that have benefited everyone. Please tell why union dues go to re-election campaigns for politicians and how that benefits everyone. Please tell me why bad workers are protected from being fired and how that benefits everyone. Please explain to me why states are going bankrupt if not for unfunded public employee pensions. Please explain to me why public employee pensions and healthcare are funded by tax payers who cannot receive the same services and how that benefits everyone.

You know what the difference is between a mob forcing a shop owner to pay for protection and a union forcing members to pay dues is? One is legal! Union bosses are the exact same thing as mob bosses.

No one should take away their right to assemble and to voice their opinions. But, forcing people to pay dues is nothing more than a ponzi scheme. A big legal ponzi scheme. If bad workers and teachers weren't protected with millions of dollars behind them, then we would all benefit. If instead of union dues being taken, salaries were lowered but those people still receive the same take home amount then prices on everything unions have their hands in would lower and we would all benefit. If bad politicians that only care about their own job didn't have millions of dollars behind them from union bosses then they wouldn't get re-elected and we would all benefit. Now who are the selfish ones here?