It is a form of contract. You don’t approve of enforcing contracts? AnarchoSocialistPinko!
How could that possibly be? You just explained how capitalism had already created high wages and safe work environments…
The public has no right to anyone’s continued labor once a contract expires. The public, via their elected representatives, can negotiate for an extension on newly agreed terms, if it likes. Failing successful negotiations, they may not get the extension. That’s life.
Are you familiar with the term “company store” or “company town”? That’s what the folks calling themselves “capitalists” gave us. I say “folks calling themselves”, because for the most part, the people who call themselves capitalists, aren’t. All those ideals that are supposed to be so near and dear to the heart of capitalism? Those are what the unions fight for, not the fat cats.
Back from the polls. The place was unbelievably busy for an off year. The parking lot was packed and I had to wait in line for about 10 minutes for a ballot booth. (Which isn’t a big deal, but usually in non-presidential-election years, I just waltz in and out with no wait at all, and the place is deserted.)
Not that kind. Contracts that restrict competition are held invalid all the time. Verizon and AT&T can’t sign a contract in which they agree not to market to the other’s customers.
I think it’s possible to oppose public employee unions without being in favor of company towns. :rolleyes:
Besides, most company stores and towns, including the scrip system, were to the mutual benefit of workers and companies. The company store/town model was ripe for abuse by companies but that doesn’t mean every company, or even most companies, abused it. Much of what has been said about company towns is distorted.
Banning strikes does not compel anyone to work. You can just quit. But don’t expect your job back later.
It’s odd to me that people would actually vote in favor of paying higher taxes for something that doesn’t directly benefit them. But, then again, I don’t live in Ohio so my opinion is kind of irrelevant. Honestly. Ohio deserves whatever they get.
Out of the police force, firefighters, and teachers, which do you feel you do not directly benefit from? :dubious:
What benefits society benefits all its members. The benefit does not have to be direct for this to be true. I am quite pleased to vote to increase taxes for the indirect benefit to myself of improved police and fire protection, and appropriate compensation for my children’s teachers.
I don’t even have children, but I believe that good teachers benefit all of us and deserve our support.
I agree. Please convey that sentiment to the teachers’ union. It believes good teachers should earn no more than bad ones.
Hell, I believe that too. How are you going to decide who the good teachers are? Test scores? Yeah, that’s what we need in our classrooms: more hyper-focusing on test scores at the expense of all other types of learning. Maybe we should just have popularity contests where parents get to vote on which teachers should earn more money. Certainly nothing could go wrong with this system either.
Or maybe we can just pay teachers a reasonable salary to attract competent people to the profession. I could even get behind eliminating the tenure system if that would warm the cockles of your conservative heart. But merit-based pay for teachers is idiotic and unworkable.
I don’t think merit-based pay is idiotic, but I do think it’s unworkable.
Which is a shame. When my wife was a high school teacher, she worked her butt off to be good – and she was. While other, less dedicated teachers (who coincidentally always seemed to also be the football coaches) would pass class time showing movies. Not educational movies, but stuff like “Pearl Harbor” (not a history class) or “Shrek.” But we have yet to come up with a fair, reliable, impartial way of measuring teacher performance.
You know very well that’s not what’s meant.
Restoring collective bargaining rights does nothing to help the average worker, who does not belong to a union. In fact, the only thing it does for the average worker is cause him or her to pay more in taxes in order to ensure that the union worker enjoys more rights and protections than they do, quite possibly at the expense of the non-union worker. That makes no sense to me.
So if you’re getting the short end of the stick, unionize. It IS your right. Trying to punish some other poor slob just because you’ve been screwed is stupid. :smack:
That argument doesn’t wash.
And unions do help ununionized workers, anyway. If the deal the unions are getting is enough better than the deal the ununionized are getting, they’re more likely to want to unionize to get the same deal.
You don’t believe in Trickle-Down? :eek:
Your fellow conservatives are going to cast you out, or smite you, or something…
I’m not from Ohio, but I don’t really see the need for civil service unions. Workers need protection from private employers. I’m not certain they need protection from public employers.
On the other hand, Republicans are pro-SB5, so it must be bad.