Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Michigan is now a right to work state and you oppose right to work. Why do you want to steal my freedom to join a public union or not? Shouldn't I be allowed to be a teacher and freely choose not to join a union that causes inefficiencies for the school/government and that donates my dues to politicians that I disagree with?
You elect your union officials. By that democratic process you authorize union officials to help those candidates that will take your well being into account when they vote. The rich have scored a great victory by calling corporations people and they are getting away with it. Now you want to pound more nails into the coffin where our right to bargain collectively is being buried.
Anyone who works for a living and becomes a shill for the rich is a stooge.
No free association is the right of people to make whatever contracts they choose within reasonable limits (e.g. no murder for hire). If you want to make a union shop contract great, if not then you shouldn't have too. I am 100% fine with forcing people to comply with pre-existing contracts if they are newly entering an organization. They can choose not to work with an employer if they don't like it.
Free association is the freedom to contract with as few restrictions as possible. It is not the freedom to undermine other people's contracts because you have preferences and scruples.
You think it is unreasonable for someone to want to work for their own government, but not join a privately run union that will take their dues, run their pension into the ground, force public ballots, refuse to be rechartered for decades, donate money to politicians, etc...?
Then you illogically compare it to committing the crime of murder - which is not a free association issue, but rather an issue of murder being illegal.
You oppose free association of citizens to their own government - in a manner that FDR would find harmful to society.
-So you oppose free association and demand a monopoly of government workers for a public union if it has already taken hold?
-Do you oppose my right of free association to choose not to join a union, if a union were to start to form at my public school where it currently does not exist?
-Why do you think public unions oppose frequent re-certification of their unions by the actual workers and instead favor re-certification every 20 to 30 to even 40+ years? Do you think it is because unions oppose free association? Do you oppose annual re-certifications for public unions or would that be too close to free association for you (which you clearly oppose)?
You and I both know that some of those "pre-existing" union contracts wouldn't exist if there were a private annual ballot.
-Why do you think public unions oppose private ballots for public union re-certification? Is it because they oppose free association and know that public ballots can be used to intimidate people who vote for free association? Do you also oppose private ballots as a means to oppose free association?
-So if a college kid wants to work in a government position that at the time is only possible through joining a union, but they were against union inefficiency, corruption and donations of dues $ to Democrats, you would oppose that person's free association and tell them that they had to give up their life long career aspiration?
You think it is unreasonable for someone to want to work for their own government, but not join a privately run union that will take their dues, run their pension into the ground, force public ballots, refuse to be rechartered for decades, donate money to politicians, etc...?
Then you illogically compare it to committing the crime of murder - which is not a free association issue, but rather an issue of murder being illegal.
You oppose free association of citizens to their own government - in a manner that FDR would find harmful to society.
-So you oppose free association and demand a monopoly of government workers for a public union if it has already taken hold?
-Do you oppose my right of free association to choose not to join a union, if a union were to start to form at my public school where it currently does not exist?
-Why do you think public unions oppose frequent re-certification of their unions by the actual workers and instead favor re-certification every 20 to 30 to even 40+ years? Do you think it is because unions oppose free association? Do you oppose annual re-certifications for public unions or would that be too close to free association for you (which you clearly oppose)?
You and I both know that some of those "pre-existing" union contracts wouldn't exist if there were a private annual ballot.
-Why do you think public unions oppose private ballots for public union re-certification? Is it because they oppose free association and know that public ballots can be used to intimidate people who vote for free association? Do you also oppose private ballots as a means to oppose free association?
-So if a college kid wants to work in a government position that at the time is only possible through joining a union, but they were against union inefficiency, corruption and donations of dues $ to Democrats, you would oppose that person's free association and tell them that they had to give up their life long career aspiration?
All irrelevant garbage, to the point at hand. If I am selling my labor and my employer is buying my labor we should have a right to contract on all things price, hours, term, associations, future negotiations, and union membership requirments for myself and future employees. That is capitalism plan and simple freedom to contract.
You say you want to restrict these negotiations because of some vague concepts of what currently disinterested future parties might want.
I say that isn't capitalism and while you have got right to work laws why not support other laws to restrict contracting for "free association". How about you ban all exclusive distribution contracts. Lets not allow manufacturers to sign deals with retail consortiums for exclusive distribution because hey it violates the "free association" of other retailers who might want to sell that product. Lets also ban exclusive supplier contracts, because its unfair to "free association" to have one supplier lower their price for a buyer to be the only supplier they work with. Lets also ban stock purchase requirements because it violates "free association" for closely held companies to control who their shareholders sell too.
You might like some or all of this but its not capitalism.
The same reason everyone else should be able to form labor unions, because people have the right to associate with whomever they want to when they are creating business contracts. The way I see it restricting labor unions is anti-capitalistic since you are interfering in folks right to contract and negotiate with whom they like when selling their labor. People should be free to work together in contracting with another party to ensure the best price for their services in a negotiation.
I seriously doubt if anyone on the right would tolerate the government telling small business partners who they contracted with that they were not allowed to be business partners when dealing with them and that they had to break up their partnerships and do business individually with the state, so why is it acceptable to do it with people essentially selling their labor.
ok, why do public employees, who rely on taxpayer money need to have a union who will always be in favor of telling its members to vote for more taxes in order to get a pay raise?
ok, why do public employees, who rely on taxpayer money need to have a union who will always be in favor of telling its members to vote for more taxes in order to get a pay raise?
I don't exactly see a question in there, but I think public employees like all employees should be free to try and contract for a union if they so desire again that is just capitalism.
Is there something in our current labor laws that isn't being addressed? Is there something about sitting in a swivel chair and stamping pieces of paper that's super dangerous and represent poor working conditions? Are state employees not being paid a fair wage?
Help me out here.
I have nothing against unions per say. But if they strike then they should be subject to fired there jobs like anyone else who does show up. They have a right tho to bargain for a contract like anyone else. Also no one should be forced to join and they should not be allowed to be a monopoly on one service. Competition is good there as in business.
What they do is same as others from office to streets and sewers. The problem is often they deal with politics; which is worse than dealing with a customers.
I don't exactly see a question in there, but I think public employees like all employees should be free to try and contract for a union if they so desire again that is just capitalism.
I disagree. any public employee should not be allowed to have a union on the taxpayers dime. if the public employee does not like it, then let them get a job in the private sector.
I disagree. any public employee should not be allowed to have a union on the taxpayers dime. if the public employee does not like it, then let them get a job in the private sector.
I dislike that approach because you are setting one set of rules for private employees/employers and one set of rules for government employers/employees. It just seems you are unnecessarily limited peoples right to contract purely because of who one of the parties is.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
