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.
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.
You are pretending it is irrelevant, because you are being hypocritical and oppose free association.
It is not free association to refuse to have a public union rechartered for 40+ years.
It is not free association to block me from keeping my public teaching job should a union start to form and I choose not to join.
It is not free association or democratic to refuse a private ballot for rechartering a public union.
It is not free association to say all of the careers in a particular field must belong to a union.
It is not free association to force a public employee of the government against their will to pay union dues to a privately run union for causes that go against their morals.
3415 People did it last year.
It's obviously doable.
If you don't like paying U.S. taxes, I say go for it.
And as I said, it's NOT your only option. If you don't like the taxes that go with the complexity of modern life, go live off the land in Alaska.
But of course, you with your total lack of commitment will never do that. Instead you just whine, and b*tch and complain.
There's 2 possible solutions for you. It's not MY fault you won't take them. That's your OWN choice.
Ken
Actually, the one who in their juvenile, infantile way prefers to ignore facts is you - as I listed some of the cities and states that have already gone bankrupt due to public employee unions, as well as links to academic studies showing how damaging they are to the proper functioning of government from sources like City College in NYC, hardly a bastion of conservatism.
Instead of childishly whining about how the public should just accept paying ever higher taxes to sustain the lavish perks, salaries, benefits and pensions of public employee unions - money better spent elsewhere - you should start listening to sources other than idiots like randi weingarten, who seem to be your primary information source.
For those interested in facts, in 2001 NYC's pension costs were $1 BBN; as of last year they were almost $9 BBN. No sane person can think that that is a sustainable course, and for further reading for the FACTS the far left, public employee union apologists don't like advertised:
"Pension costs for retirees, as well as health-insurance costs, are often cited by school districts as some of their biggest *expenses."
Even better:
That includes pension king Edgar McManus, 90, a retired Queens College history professor who took in $561,286 last year, and Madeleine Brennan, 88, who raked in $417,466 last year after 50 years as a principal in Brooklyn.
This catastrophe is playing out all over the country - this lunatic, runaway train is going to bankrupt the country, and the backlash against the public employee unions is going to be horrific. If they had any intelligence, they'd cease the out-of-control greed and start offering concessions to the cities/states, because if they don't, they will likely face armageddon, and get completely crushed.
3415 People did it last year.
It's obviously doable.
If you don't like paying U.S. taxes, I say go for it.
And as I said, it's NOT your only option. If you don't like the taxes that go with the complexity of modern life, go live off the land in Alaska.
But of course, you with your total lack of commitment will never do that. Instead you just whine, and b*tch and complain.
There's 2 possible solutions for you. It's not MY fault you won't take them. That's your OWN choice.
Ken
Now that I think about it, WTF should <I> have to move, when the vast majority of the whole f--king planet has their basic services delivered by public employees who are NOT unionized?
No, friend <I> am living here, and if the public employees want their perks, pensions, fat salaries, benefits, iron-clad job security, etc - they can move somewhere else and see if some other place is willing to accept overpaying for basic services.
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?
Even union members vote for who they want. My sister is a teacher, in a union, but always votes republican. I have no idea why lol
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 am not going to spend much time on your little side conversation, but if you are equating and confusing the provision of basic services by government with the private sector labor/capital relationship, you clearly have no grasp of basic economics and need to stop posting on the subject - immediately.
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.
You don't "dislike" the approach, you cannot even begin to grasp it in the first place, because you are confusing private labor/capital deployment with governmental service provisioning. As I said above, until you can differentiate between the two, there's really no point in you even remaining in the thread.
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.
Simple: Because democracies are run through party politics and regular changes in the party in power would result in dramatic wage, regulatory and employment policies were it not for independent representation of the TECHNOCRATIC portion of the government.
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.
