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.
I'm for Freedom....what the heck is wrong with you?...
Mircea
If you don't understand International Law, International Relations or International Treaties, you might want to consider refraining from inserting-foot-in-mouth.
Compelled membership in a union is a Human Rights Violation.
SLAPping unions with lawsuits for Human Rights Violations will bleed them dry financially....to the point where the only money left is their pension funds.
If you don't under ERISA, then you might want to actually read it....the whole point is that once unions are bled dry of their money, they are done....ERISA would bar union leaders --the very 1% you despise -- from raiding the pension plans to fund their life-styles.
I own my labor....not some 1-percenter who is a power-seeking preying on the weak using unions as a cover....
If you suppose that terrorizing your opponent is giving him a reason for believing that you are correct, then you are using a scare tactic and reasoning fallaciously.
Intentionally failing to use information suspected of being relevant and significant is committing the fallacy of suppressed evidence. This fallacy usually occurs when the information counts against one’s own conclusion.
If unions never existed, police and fire would still exist.
What exactly is my union benefit?
A bad cop who causes my community to lose $1,000s or $Millions each year due to crime?
A bad cop who gets 6 months suspended with pay while a "cover-up" (a Polish word pronounced "investigation") takes place, only to be reinstated?
Mircea
Ok, you keep telling yourself that, by the way it is a good thing we do not use real names here, otherwise your appreciation of first responders might not be so appreciated by them. I do notice you are scared that it could happen, so you realize that there really could be possible reactions to the actions of others, well maybe not to you, since they do not know who you are, the lawmakers, they do know their names, may they get the service they deserve
They already have been. Union membership nationwide is only about 10% of the current workforce. Some of the neo-cons are railing against a boogeyman who no longer exists.
NO, they're railing against the unionization of government employees. It's a conflict of interest, with no oversight. This is why we have massive unfunded liabilities. If the government negotiates with itself, the public will be the only losers.
Private employees can unionize all they want, but even Roosevelt said public employees should never be unionized, because it would breed corruption; which it has.
"All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service." FDR
Some of those ethics complaints were indeed stupid(false is the wrong word, as they were all true, Alaska has a low bar for ethics complaints), but most of them werent from the left, heck sitting Republicans in the Alaska legislature filed ethics claims against her.
Stop blaming Democrats/ The Left for Palin just not being a good governor.
ALL of them were false.
And indeed, false ethics charges WERE a retribution for her daring to challenge a black Democrat.
The most basic reason public unions should be disallowed is based on who they bargain with - which would be other public workers.
When collective bargaining happens in the public sector, it is the union leadership talking to another public employee. The "management" who must pay the increased wages/benefits (otherwise known as "the public" or "the taxpayers") are never part of the "bargaining."
I would be totally in favor of public unions if one simple change was made - any increased cost borne by the taxpayers is explicitly explained down to the last dollar, and then submitted as referendum that the taxpayers can then vote on. Let the union present their case, get their "collective bargaining" proposal published and into the hands of the public at least 60 days before the referendum vote, and then let the true "management" decide whether to accept the union's deal.
This is why I don't have issues with private unions. They bargain with the people who must bear the cost of accepting the union's demands, as well as possible costs if the union strikes if they refuse. Whether the company is right or wrong for doing either is irrelevant because the "right" in the issue is that employee talks to the employer collectively. In public unions, two employees sit down absent any management participation and decide how much they should each make. Screw that, good for Wisconsin and one of only 3 or 4 brave conservative politicians in the country.
The most basic reason public unions should be disallowed is based on who they bargain with - which would be other public workers.
When collective bargaining happens in the public sector, it is the union leadership talking to another public employee. The "management" who must pay the increased wages/benefits (otherwise known as "the public" or "the taxpayers") are never part of the "bargaining."
I would be totally in favor of public unions if one simple change was made - any increased cost borne by the taxpayers is explicitly explained down to the last dollar, and then submitted as referendum that the taxpayers can then vote on. Let the union present their case, get their "collective bargaining" proposal published and into the hands of the public at least 60 days before the referendum vote, and then let the true "management" decide whether to accept the union's deal.
This is why I don't have issues with private unions. They bargain with the people who must bear the cost of accepting the union's demands, as well as possible costs if the union strikes if they refuse. Whether the company is right or wrong for doing either is irrelevant because the "right" in the issue is that employee talks to the employer collectively. In public unions, two employees sit down absent any management participation and decide how much they should each make. Screw that, good for Wisconsin and one of only 3 or 4 brave conservative politicians in the country.
BS the elected reps represent the taxpayers, if yours do not you should do something to change it.
Yes, ENTIRELY. There are lots of Republicans on the left.
Wow, nice try, too bad you missed.
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.
