Why do you think it’s a good thing for employers to force employees to join a union? Have you ever even tried to answer that? You just keep coming up with more and more extraneous side issues.
Here’s the point though–in this case, the employer was the entirety of Wisconsin, because the Government is their agent. The head manager is the Governor, and he chose not to collude with unions to only higher people who pay union dues. So in this case, both employer and their duly elected agent have decided they didn’t want the State of Wisconsin to be a place where you had to pay union dues in order to get a job.
So why are you against that? It was a free choice between employer and the union to end that exclusive relationship.
So even your own point doesn’t support you here. Another issue worth noting, and that you’ve not addressed, is this is a system which forces all public servants to pay into an organization that engages in vast amounts of public lobbying and politicking. If your politics disagrees with this activity, you’re essentially being forced to make contributions against your will to an organization that advocates for things to which you are opposed.
Would you support employers who reached agreements with the Republican party so that only Republican party members could work at that job site?
Maybe. But I never made any claims along these lines, so explain why I should have to do research on it? Is there anything else I never claimed that you’d like me to do research on as well? Perhaps the viability of “Down Wind Faster Than The Wind” vehicles? Recipes for coffee cake?
No, none of that will be necessary. I simply want you to provide a real world instance of what you claim the market will magically provide. Either that, or just admit you pulled that assertion out of your fifth point of contact.
Well, yes. But is it your contention that is the only thing they advocate for?
If you mean exempt from making other people give them money, yes they are exempt from that. I have no problem with unions advocating for political causes. I have a problem forcing people to give money to organizations that do so.
Well, I’d venture that it is the point. A public school that suddenly loses 25% of its income and 25% of its students isn’t going to do very well. Some costs aren’t directly divisible on a per-student basis. Even if you have 25% fewer students, you still have to mow the whole lawn.
I’d reckon that it’s just starve the beast, with a twist of give money to religious institutions.
Simple: some contracts are injurious to the public good.
Should I be able to force my wife to sign a contract saying I will provide no support to any children we have if we get divorced? Of course not–and government wouldn’t care one bit if we signed such a contract, it would have no force at all. Government has an interest in seeing children provided for by their biological parents, because otherwise their care and upbringing falls to society as a whole, who should not have to bear that cost if the parents can afford it. So that is why you can’t freely enter into any marriage pro-contracts that absolve one party from child support.
In this instance, a major employer, for example the entire State Government, entering into a contract with a provider of labor to only hire persons who belong to that labor organization is involved in collusion. Collusion is something governments have for some 100+ years now fought against, and price-fixing, anti-competitive agreements, and etc are all injurious to the public good which is why private companies cannot legally enter into contracts to do those things.
in a discussion centering on teachers unions in a direct reply to a post by boblibdem that was specifically about unionized teachers. If you were talking about non-union plumbers, non-union steamfitters, or non-union coal miners, then it is my fault for presuming that you were actually focused on the discussion at hand.
What if the union leadership is corrupt? In a agency shop, we have no ability to organize a different union or in any way to impede the power of the union leadership. This is because our employer has decided to collude with a single union to close up the labor market. You are working from a starting assumption that unions will only work to the benefit of their membership.
You are working from a starting assumption that everyone who wants to be a public school teacher wants to be in a union. By and large unions force “one size fits all” payscales on teachers. If you were the best teacher in a High School full of teachers who refused to work and barely interacted with students, would you really want part of your paycheck going to the union that protects those lazy teachers at the expense of hard working teachers like yourself?
There are many cases in which unions are not better for individuals. Your assertion is that because “in the aggregate” a union is better for workers (which is just an assumption in and of itself) means all individuals should want to be in a union and that those who do not just want to free ride. But that’s not the case, unions often create situations that are to the detriment to the most productive workers to the benefit of the least productive workers. The free riders are actually the lesser productive workers, not the more productive workers who probably don’t want to be in the union in the first place.
And there we go. You now get the point. In this debate we aren’t the employees, we’re the employer. These workers were not employed by GM or GE, they were employed by the people of the State of Wisconsin.
You argue that unions help the worker at the expense of the employer (I’d say that’s often true, although many times I think unions hurt both parties.) Well, when the employer is the entire population of Wisconsin, then by supporting the existence of public sector unions you are basically saying that the interests of public sector employees in the State of Wisconsin should be advanced at the expense of the entire rest of the State. There’s a reason FDR was wisely against public sector unions, he knew the difference between Ford and the public. He knew that some industrialists were tyrants who abused their workers and needed reigning in. He also knew that when the employer was the taxpayer and society at large, that a public sector union was just setting up blocs of power that work against the good of society as a whole.
Unions typically hurt their employers, when the employer is the state, that means if their employees are unionized the loser is all of society.
No, as a matter of fact, you didn’t. You made a claim, but the cite you provided didn’t say what you seemed to be saying it did.
So, do you have a cite for Santorum calling for the destruction of public schools? If you don’t, then simply admit that you are making false arguments based on no evidence.
I never made the claim that non-union teachers make more money than unionized teachers. I just said that I know of many examples in which non-union labor makes more than union labor for the same job.
It is not me, but people like Lobohan who are insisting that now that Wisconsin’s public sector unions took it on the chin, teacher salaries will collapse both at public and private schools.
He’s the one making an assertion about teacher pay, not me. I was just pointing out that in general, there is no absolute proof that by de-unionizing wages decrease.
If Lobohan feels this is the case, all he needs to do is provide some citations to support his argument. Many other states have removed collective bargaining rights from public sector employees, it shouldn’t be too hard to compare their wages before and after or to compare their wages to other states with union workforces.
I’ll grant that evil unions are bad. But the not evil ones aren’t.
If you’re worried about power grabs by unions, legislate an intelligent law to prevent huge ones. Don’t destroy the union and shrug your shoulders.
If you took the time to ask clearly, you’d have noted that I knew that all along.
Oh shit son!
Ahem, if I have employees, I want them to have a good wage. I also want them to be protected from mindless slash-and-cut taxes elected officials that think public schools are a waste of money.
Every public employee in Wisconsin should go to their supervisor tomorrow and start individually negating a contract. They don’t want collective bargaining, let them experience a whole lot of individual bargaining for awhile.