Another Very Sad Day for the USA

[Bill V]

I believe that their rights should be considered differently, on a case by case basis, and that is a-okay with me...the guy that signs their paycheck.

TJR, isn't there a fundamental conflict of interest if the employer is determining what the rights of the employees are when negotiating with the employer? If I were running a business, and that were the case, I'd say that the employees can't quit, can't strike, work 100 hours a week, no vacation or sick time, no benefits, and get paid a nickel an hour. And they have no right to argue that, as I get to determine what their rights are. Isn't that effectively what you (and Walker) are saying? (My example is obviously taking that to a drastic extreme, but you get the point.)

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Bill V,



Taking (or deciding to keep) a civil servant job is optional too, just as taking bailout money is optional.



Granted, it would suck if you HAD that job and your rights THEN got restricted. Maybe there could be some grandfathering for such cases, or some other dispensation. But, for NEW govt employees...



TJR

 

[Les]

TJR, isn't there a fundamental conflict of interest if the employer is determining what the rights of the employees are when negotiating with the employer?

Bill V, not in the private sector. Essentially the employer is King.

If I were running a business, and that were the case, I'd say that the employees can't quit, can't strike, work 100 hours a week, no vacation or sick time, no benefits, and get paid a nickel an hour. And they have no right to argue that, as I get to determine what their rights are.

Yes you could require all of these rules, but no one will work for you. This is an extreme example, as you say, and it's not what anyone is trying to do. As with any job, if you don't like the pay, the rules, the work environment, your employer or your boss, you can quit.



No one is forced to work a particular job but we all put up with some good and bad because we have to work to survive, or at least most of us do.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Bill V asked:

TJR, isn't there a fundamental conflict of interest if the employer is determining what the rights of the employees are when negotiating with the employer?

Only in this rare case where the employer and the body which makes the rules/passes the laws are one in the same. In most cases and throughout the private sector, the rules and the laws are created by government organizations, and/or have become common place to the point of not going away anytime soon.



It's only in this special case of the public sector that such a conflict exists.



Bill V also said:

If I were running a business, and that were the case, I'd say that the employees can't quit, can't strike, work 100 hours a week, no vacation or sick time, no benefits, and get paid a nickel an hour. And they have no right to argue that, as I get to determine what their rights are.

Sure, you could do all those things. However, there are labor laws that guarantee sick time. There are labor laws that limit overtime, or at least define pro-rated pay for overtime, etc. Also, there are minimum wage laws. About the only thing you can legally withhold are benefits such as vacation, etc. As far as employees "having a right" to argue about anything you do as an employer, your employees can always come to you, individually or as a concerned group and indicate that they are dissatisfied. Employers and employees should WELCOME AND EMBRACE such open conversations and discussions. If the employees don't get what they want, they can vote with their feet. If employees are working for an employer that doesn't value that communication they should leave.



Lastly, Bill said:

Isn't that effectively what you (and Walker) are saying? (My example is obviously taking that to a drastic extreme, but you get the point.)

Nope, not at all.



You, like so many others, are saying that unions are the only thing preventing employers from:

- working people excessively without just compensation,

- not paying a fair wage,

- not providing sick time,

- not listening to their employees,

- not providing their employees other benefits, such as vacation, bonuses, etc.



There are labor laws that setup the first THREE of the FIVE above. As for the remaining TWO, well, employers are incented by the free market to provide these things to their employees. If they don't, someone else will, and those other employers will get all the "best" workers.



I think the issue here is that unions, by and large, turned American workers into a faceless, nameless, easily hot-swappable, commodity. All were the same; relatively interchangeable gears. There was really no good, better, best.



Private, non-union employers looked for the best and the brightest. Those that were the movers and the shakers. They wanted the better, and the best, not just the fair and good. And, to compete, and to attract the best, they provided better...



Private, non-unionized employers actually do want to do what's right for their employees...the good ones anyways, and MOST are good. If a worker finds that they are working for a bad employer, then they should work to change that employer, or LEAVE.



TJR

 

[Bill V]

If a worker finds that they are working for a bad employer, then they should work to change that employer, or LEAVE.

Now there's a great message--Let's make conditions for teachers and other public workers get to the point where the best and the brightest of them leave.

:banghead:

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Bill V,



Funny how you take something I say and then twist it into an absurd version of speculation in order to serve your argument. LOL



Again, what you just said above presumes that there will be some drastic reversal of working conditions for teachers and public workers should unions for them be abolished.



I simply don't believe that would be the case.



If anything, working conditions might very well improve. I suspect that WOULD be the more likely scenario.



Why?



Because rather than deal with the BS, under-achieving tenured and career employees that should be gone (burned out, protected, etc), and have to incur the reduction in overall morale that accompanies, these "rebooted" government agencies and school districts will have at their disposal a whole caudry of "new blood" in the form of great, fresh, skilled, talent to draw from. That will force them to compete for that new talent, and in the process make for a better working environment for all (new and current).



I really, honestly, think that is MORE likely when a union leaves.



Also, this is one big reason why charter schools are kicking the arses of public schools, of late...IMHO.



TJR

 

[Les]

Now there's a great message--Let's make conditions for teachers and other public workers get to the point where the best and the brightest of them leave.

If making teachers and other public employees pay for "some" of their pension will make them leave, don't care. Let them find jobs in the private sector and see just how good some of them have it.

 

[Bill V]

Funny how you take something I say and then twist it into an absurd version of speculation in order to serve your argument. LOL

TJR, I realize now that I did a very poor job of indicating that my most recent statement there was meant primarily tongue-in-cheek.

Also, this is one big reason why charter schools are kicking the arses of public schools, of late...IMHO.

Hmmm...Not around here, from what I've heard. Many charter schools around here have been going under and/or failing standards.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Bill V,



How are the public schools in your area?



I've seen the charter schools seem to do the best where the public schools are at the ends of the spectrum (really, really bad, or really, really good). Where public schools are "okay" charter schools seem to lanquish. I think it is the nature of competition and the marketplace. Where school districts are good, you have a surplus of good teachers. Where school districts are bad, you have good teachers that want to move out of the public schools. Where school districts are neither, you have neither.



Mediocrity breeds mediocrity.



TJR

 

[Bill V]

My understanding is that they range from okay to quite good. Few are truly "great", but almost none are bad. In other words, pretty much in agreement with your assessment.

 

[Frank screwyourednecks]

 

[Frank screwyourednecks]

Here ya go...some more facts for everyone to enjoy. (sorry TJR, and Les)





Only 5 states do not have collective bargaining for educators and have deemed it illegal.



S.Carolina, N Carolina, Georgia, Texas, and Virginia.





Their ranking on ACT/SAT scores:



South Carolina - 50th



North Carolina - 49th



Georgia - 48th (a real shocker huh Bud?)



Texas - 47th



Virginia - 44th



Wisconsin is currently ranked #2 by the way.



All from the south.. and I bet they get paid the least too. Yay!! those states really care about education!



Wow, why is it that I can see the big picture and so many others cant.



The truth will set you free.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Frank,



Shocking I tell you. You found some stats that rank southern schools the lowest in the nation. Then you attribute their low ranking to the fact that they do not have collective bargaining.



Sounds like some assumptions to me.



You mention Virginia, which is 44th. Then Texas and others 47th, and above. That implies that the states ranked 45th and 46th DO have collective bargaining for teachers and they are WORSE than at least one that doesn't, and almost as bad as three that don't.



So, clearly, the ability to collectively bargain or not is not the ONLY think keeping these low-ranked states down. Right?



Also, many states don't have formal laws in place to prevent or allow collective bargaining of teachers, and many that do have laws granting collective bargaining for teachers (and public employees) also have statutes that prohibit strikes.



To me, collective bargaining without striking is akin to a gun without bullets. But then, I'm probably trivializing the power and benefits of collective bargaining...especially for the dim bulbs in the pack.



TJR

 

[Frank screwyourednecks]

Tjr. I dont get your rationale. Your right-leaning delusions are truly keeping you from seeing the big picture. You MUST see that its a fight. Right? The people, and our societys best interests are pitted against big corporations and thier whores. The Union busting GOP. I know you somehow have a warped hard-on against Unions, but you cant tell me that you dont understand what is going on. Ill even compliment you....I know you ARE smart enough to understand. Gee whiz man.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Frank,



"whores", "delusion", "warped hard-on",...



Wow.



You really are a piece of work.



I make a rational, logical argument that your previous post may be flawed with an "attribution error", and rather than a mea culpa response you belittle me for not sharing your general opinion on unions.



There is no big picture here. Just a lot of FUD.



I'm not afraid of representing myself in the workplace, and not afraid in defining my own employment value proposition. Are you?



I have no real issues with unions. Really. I just don't think they are needed. I appreciate and respect those that think otherwise and can articulate real reasons for why they feel as they do. So far, supporters here have only touted history and some chicken little fear of what will happen if unions go away. Those arguments don't hold weight, IMHO. Employers today in sectors not served by unions do just fine and treat their employees fine in spite of there being no unions and no threat of unions. See my point? Need me to clarify or explain it?



What I have issue with are zealots that cannot carry on an adult, unemotional discussion about their opinion. For the zealot, when the core of their beliefs are challenged, and they cannot articulate a response, they often lash out by villifying and/or belittling those they oppose. That is when the zealot starts throwing out labels, and slams, and incredulous tones meant to demean. Do you ever do that, Frank?



It is party because of zealots like that, and their easily programmed minds, and their inability to look beyond their rhetoric that I have as negative an opinion on unions as I do.



TJR

 

[Thomas Rogers]

P.S...



Did anyone even read the article from the Washington Examiner that TrainTrac posted above???



That seemed like a good piece. What in it, exactly is objectionable and why? Please post logical, thoughtful, unemotional points of objection to the article, those that disagree.



TJR

 

[Tom Schindler]

There is no big picture here. Just a lot of FUD.

The issue is that YOU see this as FUD. Frank does NOT see this as FUD, he sees this as grim reality.

I'm not afraid of representing myself in the workplace, and not afraid in defining my own employment value proposition. Are you?

Not all industries have that opportunity, yet the men and women working those industries should be allowed to work a days work for a days wage.

I have no real issues with unions.

Liar. Your condecending comments regarding unions does mean you hate unions. You may "think" you have no issues, but you really do. You just haven't "come out of the closet" regarding this issue.

I just don't think they are needed.

One can say the same thing regarding old people. At one time, they were needed to build bridges, clean toilets, wash cars, etc., but since they are retired, they only tax society. Lets forget they are human beings right now...



Should we mass execute "old people" since they are no longer needed?

I appreciate and respect those that think otherwise and can articulate real reasons for why they feel as they do. So far, supporters here have only touted history and some chicken little fear of what will happen if unions go away. Those arguments don't hold weight, IMHO. Employers today in sectors not served by unions do just fine and treat their employees fine in spite of there being no unions and no threat of unions. See my point? Need me to clarify or explain it?

Don't kid yourself. You do not respect those that think otherwise. Just because you do not feel they hold any weight does not mean that they don't hold weight.



Employers in sectors today that are not served by unions do do well, but don't think the "threat of unions don't exist".



At any time, your own industry could have a union formed by someone, somewhere.



If unions are rendered illegal, then we will have issues since NO employer would ever have to deal with the possibility of unions.

It is party because of zealots like that, and their easily programmed minds, and their inability to look beyond their rhetoric that I have as negative an opinion on unions as I do.

I see it more as "Pig headed arrogance" that can't understand that there are some industries that need unions and simply "moving" to a new area and "finding" a new job field will solve.





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen,



Above I admitted that there are (were) some industries that are (were) well served by unions. Those industries that hire workers that are by their nature a commodity, with one individual worker largely interchangeable with another. For those industries, unions can make sense.



However, that is not the typical govt job.



My issue is not FUD, because I don't fear change in this debate. That is the fact of it. I embrace a change towards non-union govt employees and have presented rational arguments on why it probably will be better for all. Opponents have only presented doom and gloom scenarios that they haven't backed up and on the surface seem illogical. So, for me...no FUD. For others, FUD.



I am not a liar. Your name calling and inability to discuss this without such labels and with without rancor may explain why you need union representation, or value it.



You say if unions go away then there WILL be issues because current threat of unions are keeping employers in check. Frankly, that is simply something you cannot present as fact. That is like saying that without the carrying of a stick when crossing your yard, the neighbors pit bull will bite you. You can assume it might happen, but can state it WILL happen. I made the point above that there are employers acting responsibly in sectors not served by industries, why do they do as they do? I presented that the free market competition for good employees will make employers try harder and create better working conditions and benefits, as we see in so many other non-unionized sectors. These are realities today, and likely for other companies that go mon-union in the future. Do I know there won't be some abuses, in sone cases? No, I don't know that. But I am not afraid of them should they come up because I can't think of any that don't have some resolution or safeguard that does not require a union. I am willing to discuss those, though.



Again, I am not saying unions are all bad. They just aren't needed everywhere.



Govt jobs have civil servants. I can choose whether or not to by a GM car. Or by from another company, etc. In the private sector I have choices on how and where to spend my money to get my service or product. For govt agencies there is a monopoly, and often not even a choice if I want the good or the service. The govt was in the business of busting monopolies...



I can tell you personal stories about how teachers unions have crushed some local students college aspirations. It simply should not happen... Not for people that we pay to serve us.



TJR

 

[Frank screwyourednecks]

TJR is "in the closet"! He thinks Unions arent needed! Hilarious! But sad too.

 

[Les]

It's interesting to note the two biggest union supporters have never lived a day without a union being involved in their lives. Some of us come from union families and have been members of unions, so we have a better perspective of the impact, or lack thereof, a union membership may provide.