Union Busting in Wisconsin

[Pliny]

Teacher bashing has been in vogue in the English-speaking world for some time. I'm wondering why folks aren't demanding the same thing of politicians in Wisconsin as they are of the teachers.

Yes. Politician's shouldn't have collective bargaining rights either.

[Jack Weber]

That's a damned silly argument. You want to create a school system. You hire a bunch of people to teach. You negotiate salaries and benefits with them. Then you scream that they're taking it unfairly? How does THAT work? Because the people you voted to represent you in the negotiations were idiots? So then you voted for them again?!

And also, how is it their efforts are now undeserving and worthless just because they work for the people you elected to represent your interests instead of some private corporation?

I think you've hit on it...

Take a look at who's bankrolling the governor of Wisconsin...Among others,the strongly anti-organized labour Koch brothers....Who use their bought and paid for free market shills in the CATO Institute to get the anti-union message out...

In otherwords,if it's done by the public sector it's bad...It could mean state control of peoples lives...COMMUNISM!!!

If it's done by the private sector...Free entreprise...individual freedom...potentially lower costs and better service (yeah,right!!)

As an aside,I find it odd that these bullwarks of individual freedom use collectivism to get what they want.RTW legislation is the baby of the NAM through the Taft-Hartley Act...

But the NAM is a group of like minded people...A "union" by another name!!I assume members pay fee's(dues) to assist in PAC's??

Why is collectivism OK for those who demand individuality in the workplace but not for those doing the actual work???

Unless it's not so much about the "individual freedom to choose" and it's more about the bottom line under the guise of that "freedom"?

[Pliny]

No. It is confirming the law as it stands in Canada.

And the law says they shall have their entitlements. Government cannot grant rights. It can only protect them. If it can grant something it can take it away. A right to live your life without threat to person and property is a right and the government should protect that right. If the law says Bob's company has to pay him time and a half on statutory holidays it is an entitlement. While it is an entitlement to Bob it is a tthreat to the existence of the company and it's owner, too many of those entitlements and the company dies or moves away.

[jbg]

Maybe they prefer to debate from out of state.

I think it's a flat-out violation of their oath of office.

[ToadBrother]

Yes. Politician's shouldn't have collective bargaining rights either.

It's more to the point that whenever a legislature forces a cut in pay and benefits, they should see a cut in pay and benefits.

[Jack Weber]

It's more to the point that whenever a legislature forces a cut in pay and benefits, they should see a cut in pay and benefits.

That may happen to appease some of the public..

I see this as a much larger issue of trying to get an RTW beach-head in a Free Collective Bargaining state by using public employees as a test case...

There's a few too many heavy hitters on the anti-organized labour side of things to be just about public employee issues...

[ToadBrother]

And the law says they shall have their entitlements. Government cannot grant rights. It can only protect them. If it can grant something it can take it away. A right to live your life without threat to person and property is a right and the government should protect that right. If the law says Bob's company has to pay him time and a half on statutory holidays it is an entitlement. While it is an entitlement to Bob it is a tthreat to the existence of the company and it's owner, too many of those entitlements and the company dies or moves away.

But denying time and a half on holidays is an entitlement to the company as well, and forcing the employee to work at the employer's whim would do little more than reverse the situation.

To many worker bashers seem to forget that there are two sides to the coin here. Companies require employees as well, and what's more companies have no particular democratic rights at all. The fact that the are permitted to exist in any particular formulation or with any particular set of rights is because the society (government and voters) choose to recognize those rights.

We can go back and forth on the value of unions. I think in some situations they have been required, particularly where the government has been unwilling or unable to assure basic standards of safety and pay for workers. My grandfather worked in the forest industry when guys were losing limbs because of poorly maintained equipment due in large part to management whose sole ethos was working as fast for as much money as possible. The government did not seek to create safer and more equitable workplaces, so the men joined unions and went on strike, getting better pay, benefits and safety out of it. What's wrong with that? After all, the company wouldn't exist at all if there were no workers.

There surely has to be a balance here. Outright claiming Bob is the problem ignores a considerable number of other potential factors. Surely the company is not the only thing that has expectations. Bob has a family to feed.

I tell you what. I'll back banning unions providing in the future violations of labor laws come with massive fines and imprisonment for managers and owners who violate those laws. Want to kill unions, then suggest meaningful replacements for the things they did accomplish, things with harsh enough teeth that managers and owners will behave themselves.

[jbg]

There's a few too many heavy hitters on the anti-organized labour side of things to be just about public employee issues...

Not really.

In most of the country, people vote on school budgets. Those budgets are regularly falling victim to anger that properly should be directed at State houses. The rot in State employment runs deep.

[Jack Weber]

Not really.

In most of the country, people vote on school budgets. Those budgets are regularly falling victim to anger that properly should be directed at State houses. The rot in State employment runs deep.

Why would the Koch's be interested in a state budget crisis in Wisconsin??

What's in it for them??

And please,for the love of everything sacred,don't tell us it's because they're "Freedom loving Americans"...

[Jack Weber]

But denying time and a half on holidays is an entitlement to the company as well, and forcing the employee to work at the employer's whim would do little more than reverse the situation.

To many worker bashers seem to forget that there are two sides to the coin here. Companies require employees as well, and what's more companies have no particular democratic rights at all. The fact that the are permitted to exist in any particular formulation or with any particular set of rights is because the society (government and voters) choose to recognize those rights.

We can go back and forth on the value of unions. I think in some situations they have been required, particularly where the government has been unwilling or unable to assure basic standards of safety and pay for workers. My grandfather worked in the forest industry when guys were losing limbs because of poorly maintained equipment due in large part to management whose sole ethos was working as fast for as much money as possible. The government did not seek to create safer and more equitable workplaces, so the men joined unions and went on strike, getting better pay, benefits and safety out of it. What's wrong with that? After all, the company wouldn't exist at all if there were no workers.

There surely has to be a balance here. Outright claiming Bob is the problem ignores a considerable number of other potential factors. Surely the company is not the only thing that has expectations. Bob has a family to feed.

I tell you what. I'll back banning unions providing in the future violations of labor laws come with massive fines and imprisonment for managers and owners who violate those laws. Want to kill unions, then suggest meaningful replacements for the things they did accomplish, things with harsh enough teeth that managers and owners will behave themselves.

Good luck with that...

We can never impede the free market for things like health and safety...That takes away from the bottom line!!!

[bloodyminded]

That's a damned silly argument. You want to create a school system. You hire a bunch of people to teach. You negotiate salaries and benefits with them. Then you scream that they're taking it unfairly?

Yeah, that seems to be one of the arguments. It's a little confusing.

Edited February 27, 2011 by bloodyminded

[pinko]

This is confusing rights with entitlements.

Not at all. Using your argument the rights defined in the American Constitution are entitlements. Surely you aren't suggesting this to be the case.

Edited February 27, 2011 by pinko

[pinko]

And the law says they shall have their entitlements. Government cannot grant rights. It can only protect them. If it can grant something it can take it away. A right to live your life without threat to person and property is a right and the government should protect that right. If the law says Bob's company has to pay him time and a half on statutory holidays it is an entitlement. While it is an entitlement to Bob it is a tthreat to the existence of the company and it's owner, too many of those entitlements and the company dies or moves away.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms enshrines collective bargaining rights. In turn each province and territory as well as the federal government have legislation establishing the parameters defining the process of collective bargaining. In each of these jurisdictions there is usually a seperate piece of legislation dealing with the civil service proper in relation to other sectors. A collective agreement sets out terms and conditions of employment including such matters as hours of work, overtime and holiday payment. While there are a variety of threshholds for the payment of overtime there is a recognition in law that an employee is to receive a premium after a certain period of time. In the context of collective bargaining such matters will have been mutually established through negotiations between the employer and the union.

It must be presumed that a business has established itself and hired employees with a view to being viable. It must also be presumed that when an employer accepts specific conditions within the confines of a collective agreement that it did so in good faith and as required by law is expected to comply with such conditions. Should a breach of the collective agreement be identified or an interpretive issue raised each collective agreement will contain a greivance arbitration procedure to resolve such differences. The law as it stands in most jurisdictions allows for arbitration as a final and binding settlement of issues raised through this process.

It is the enforcement of such rights by the union and on behalf of the employees covered by the collective agreement that distinguishes and organized workplace from a non-union shop.

I find it odd that you assume a property right yet wish to deny collective bargaining righst.

Edited February 27, 2011 by pinko

[pinko]

I think it's a flat-out violation of their oath of office.

I am wondering if you will post the text of the oath of office.

[jbg]

I am wondering if you will post the text of the oath of office.

Oath of office. SECTION 28. Members of the legislature, and all officers, executive and judicial, except such inferior officers as may be by law exempted, shall before they enter upon the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe an oath or affirmation to support the constitution of the United States and the constitution of the state of Wisconsin, and faithfully to discharge the duties of their respective offices to the best of their ability. (link) (emphasis supplied)

[Pliny]

It's more to the point that whenever a legislature forces a cut in pay and benefits, they should see a cut in pay and benefits.

Why? If it is for the "greater good" or in "the public interest" then maybe they should get a raise as they are finally doing their job and not concerned with losing votes.

[jbg]

In the context of collective bargaining such matters will have been mutually established through negotiations between the employer and the union.

It must be presumed that a business has established itself and hired employees with a view to being viable.

You make a variety of good points. The problem is that elected officials come and go, and have every incentive to kick a problem down the road. Pensions and other benefits allow them to get the support of unionized workers, a very powerful political group, and lay the giveaways' costs on the public.

I am generally for private sector collective bargaining; not really for public sector collective bargaining.

[pinko]

Oath of office. SECTION 28. Members of the legislature, and all officers, executive and judicial, except such inferior officers as may be by law exempted, shall before they enter upon the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe an oath or affirmation to support the constitution of the United States and the constitution of the state of Wisconsin, and faithfully to discharge the duties of their respective offices to the best of their ability. (link) (emphasis supplied)

Thanks Jim. I don't see anything there that suggests the duty described is breached. Under your system stonewalling is a practice used as a matter of tactic.

[Pliny]

But denying time and a half on holidays is an entitlement to the company as well, and forcing the employee to work at the employer's whim would do little more than reverse the situation.

Has there ever been, or would there ever be a law that time and half on holidays were illegal? It may be a part of a contractual agreement but never a law. Now that would also be a viloation of rights and a legitimate complaint. The right to negotiate or not negotiate a contract of agreement is a right. Why is it a right? Because government doesn't give it to anyone. People should have the freedom to negotiate contracts with whomever they please.

To many worker bashers seem to forget that there are two sides to the coin here. Companies require employees as well, and what's more companies have no particular democratic rights at all. The fact that the are permitted to exist in any particular formulation or with any particular set of rights is because the society (government and voters) choose to recognize those rights.

You really have to get the difference between a right and an entitlement. Choosing to recognize and/or grant a right means it is not a right. A right is something that everyone should have with or without anyone, be it government or another person, granting or choosing to recognize it as a right. Rights are something that need protecting not granting or recognizing. A thing that can be granted or recognized can be ungranted or unrecognized. The right to the security of person and property is a right. It is not an entitlement. It is what you, and everyone else, expect of others and is necessary to one's ability to live his life. People that violate that right lose the protection of it. It is not taken away. So the difference is that a right is something that is protected not granted. If a government gives an entitlement or privilege to someone, especially at the expense of another it is exactly that an entitlement or privilege or favour.

We can go back and forth on the value of unions. I think in some situations they have been required, particularly where the government has been unwilling or unable to assure basic standards of safety and pay for workers. My grandfather worked in the forest industry when guys were losing limbs because of poorly maintained equipment due in large part to management whose sole ethos was working as fast for as much money as possible. The government did not seek to create safer and more equitable workplaces, so the men joined unions and went on strike, getting better pay, benefits and safety out of it. What's wrong with that? After all, the company wouldn't exist at all if there were no workers.

Nothing wrong with that at all. And it is right to not work under conditions that are unnecessarily dangerous. No one should have to tolerate poorly maintained equipment that is going to endanger their lives. There is nothing wrong with collectively seeking safe work conditions and contractually agreed upon remuneration for work.

You are right a company would not exist at all if there were no workers. If safety, pay and equitable workplaces were that big a problem then there would be no workers and there would be no company. Obviously, in the forest industry where your grandfather worked these things were problems that were big enough to require attention. but if they got their way by simply shutting out people who wanted to work and would work under the existing conditions then that may be a problem and the conditions of work that workers describe may be over exaggerated. I believe that the conditions of work were harsher then than they are now. How much of that was abuse, exploitation or bottom line greed is arguable but take a look at what companies are around now and how easy it is to find work in the industry. Very few small businesses exist and only large corporations seem to be able to thrive.

Most industries have evolved that way with large corporations the only entities that can survive. Small businesses can be either bought up or competitively destroyed. Unions contribute to that by demanding that small businesses be unionized and heavily regulated just like the big corporations. If the workers in a small business are not unionized and are not getting the union rates you can bet management is not getting paid the corporate rate either. So small business disappears and many in the industry are excluded from work, as coroporations can't hire them all.

There surely has to be a balance here. Outright claiming Bob is the problem ignores a considerable number of other potential factors. Surely the company is not the only thing that has expectations. Bob has a family to feed.

Yes. There does have to be a balance. Will Bob work under conditions where he can't feed his family? I don't think so.

The problem with unions is, like most ponzi schemes, the early entrants and participants get the gravy, and the later ones lose. It is inevitable that a company will either fold or move away if it cannot compete in an ever-changing market. Products, demand, quality, taxation (probably the biggest unknown variable), etc., all change. The inflexibility of unions often contributes to failure, collapse or a movement of business to more favourable labour markets when it fails to see the unviable conditions in the market environment. It prefers instead to lobby government to maintain it's entitlements and privileges. It may seek tariffs or other protections but it constantly requires more entitlemtns and privleges from government to sustain itself. Corporations don't mind because every tariff and regulation that protects workers also protects their position against competition.

The competitive market place is always changing and evolving, and there has to be flexibility in a company. Unions don't add to the flexibility necessary and companies do what they have to in order to remain in existence, if government can't guarantee their market edge anymore they will move. simple as that.

I tell you what. I'll back banning unions providing in the future violations of labor laws come with massive fines and imprisonment for managers and owners who violate those laws. Want to kill unions, then suggest meaningful replacements for the things they did accomplish, things with harsh enough teeth that managers and owners will behave themselves.

I am not for killing Unions altogether. Public unions, yes. They operate under a monopoly and a conflict of interest.

The funny thing about companies is they eventually find out what is viable. They protect their assets and labour is an asset. If they cannot keep good workers they will make accommodations to do so. They really don't care about the ones that are there simply for a paycheque or those with a poor work ethic.

[pinko]

Has there ever been, or would there ever be a law that time and half on holidays were illegal? It may be a part of a contractual agreement but never a law. Now that would also be a viloation of rights and a legitimate complaint. The right to negotiate or not negotiate a contract of agreement is a right. Why is it a right? Because government doesn't give it to anyone. People should have the freedom to negotiate contracts with whomever they please.

You really have to get the difference between a right and an entitlement. Choosing to recognize and/or grant a right means it is not a right. A right is something that everyone should have with or without anyone, be it government or another person, granting or choosing to recognize it as a right. Rights are something that need protecting not granting or recognizing. A thing that can be granted or recognized can be ungranted or unrecognized. The right to the security of person and property is a right. It is not an entitlement. It is what you, and everyone else, expect of others and is necessary to one's ability to live his life. People that violate that right lose the protection of it. It is not taken away. So the difference is that a right is something that is protected not granted. If a government gives an entitlement or privilege to someone, especially at the expense of another it is exactly that an entitlement or privilege or favour.

Nothing wrong with that at all. And it is right to not work under conditions that are unnecessarily dangerous. No one should have to tolerate poorly maintained equipment that is going to endanger their lives. There is nothing wrong with collectively seeking safe work conditions and contractually agreed upon remuneration for work.

You are right a company would not exist at all if there were no workers. If safety, pay and equitable workplaces were that big a problem then there would be no workers and there would be no company. Obviously, in the forest industry where your grandfather worked these things were problems that were big enough to require attention. but if they got their way by simply shutting out people who wanted to work and would work under the existing conditions then that may be a problem and the conditions of work that workers describe may be over exaggerated. I believe that the conditions of work were harsher then than they are now. How much of that was abuse, exploitation or bottom line greed is arguable but take a look at what companies are around now and how easy it is to find work in the industry. Very few small businesses exist and only large corporations seem to be able to thrive.

Most industries have evolved that way with large corporations the only entities that can survive. Small businesses can be either bought up or competitively destroyed. Unions contribute to that by demanding that small businesses be unionized and heavily regulated just like the big corporations. If the workers in a small business are not unionized and are not getting the union rates you can bet management is not getting paid the corporate rate either. So small business disappears and many in the industry are excluded from work, as coroporations can't hire them all.

Yes. There does have to be a balance. Will Bob work under conditions where he can't feed his family? I don't think so.

The problem with unions is, like most ponzi schemes, the early entrants and participants get the gravy, and the later ones lose. It is inevitable that a company will either fold or move away if it cannot compete in an ever-changing market. Products, demand, quality, taxation (probably the biggest unknown variable), etc., all change. The inflexibility of unions often contributes to failure, collapse or a movement of business to more favourable labour markets when it fails to see the unviable conditions in the market environment. It prefers instead to lobby government to maintain it's entitlements and privileges. It may seek tariffs or other protections but it constantly requires more entitlemtns and privleges from government to sustain itself. Corporations don't mind because every tariff and regulation that protects workers also protects their position against competition.

The competitive market place is always changing and evolving, and there has to be flexibility in a company. Unions don't add to the flexibility necessary and companies do what they have to in order to remain in existence, if government can't guarantee their market edge anymore they will move. simple as that.

I am not for killing Unions altogether. Public unions, yes. They operate under a monopoly and a conflict of interest.

The funny thing about companies is they eventually find out what is viable. They protect their assets and labour is an asset. If they cannot keep good workers they will make accommodations to do so. They really don't care about the ones that are there simply for a paycheque or those with a poor work ethic.

I am sure you don't realize your post is full of contradictions.

[Pliny]

Why is collectivism OK for those who demand individuality in the workplace but not for those doing the actual work???

Collectivism is ok if reason doesn't prevail and it doesn't descend into mob destruction. No one wins in that case. Collectivism, as an entity unto itself, is generally about using force to get it's way.

Gathering together to restore a balance of reason with force is valid. The collective entity demanding privilege and entitlements outside and far above their contractual negotiations, that is, from government, and is provided at a cost to the welfare of others in the labour field or the economic viability of society is where the difference lies.

[pinko]

Collectivism is ok if reason doesn't prevail and it doesn't descend into mob destruction. No one wins in that case. Collectivism, as an entity unto itself, is generally about using force to get it's way.

Gathering together to restore a balance of reason with force is valid. The collective entity demanding privilege and entitlements outside and far above their contractual negotiations, that is, from government, and is provided at a cost to the welfare of others in the labour field or the economic viability of society is where the difference lies.

In the USA there is the First Amendment. You might want to read it.

You sound like a broken record.

Edited February 27, 2011 by pinko

[Pliny]

I am sure you don't realize your post is full of contradictions.

Don't think so. I'm not saying it doesn't appear to you that way. You sort of expect it. It's a funny thing about having a fixed mindset. The other person always appears to be full of contradictions and hypocrisies.

If you wish an explanation to my seeming contradictions you have to point me to one not just claim they exist. If there truly is a contradiction I won't be afraid to admit it.

[Pliny]

In the USA there is the First Amendment. You might want to read it.

Nowhere does it say that anyone has a right to a paycheque.

You sound like a broken record.

Because I feel I haven't been understood.

I understand quite well that Unions wish to protect their interests and will point to everything they can that validates their existence and everything they can that makes others responsible for perceived, real or imagined inequities, shortcomings and failures in the labour market.

Public Unions have an obvious conflict of interest. Who will they vote for? The ones that promise them benefits and entitlements. You won't find them voting for Republicans after the Wisconsin confrontation, win or lose in the effort. Only those with a view of the "greater good" or in the "public interest" would consider voting Republican. The greater good from the view of the Union is that their service is valuable to the public and deserves to be granted the remuneration it receives. They are very important to society. All that's happening is that "society" outside the union is balking at the value they are receiving for the remuneration they are giving and that it is unfair that they get to vote for politicians that will seek their votes by granting them their demands.

Certainly, politicians that vote themselves raises need to look at reality too and there has to be a mechanism in place to govern that. I think that, since they claim to be repsonsible for the economy, and in fact indirectly do attempt to control the economy through manipulation of the "playing field", that they should take a cut in pay if the economy goes for a dive or only get a raise if the economy is doing well. Of course, the previous administration is always to blame for the state of a bad economy but it should be a condition of employment that whoever is in office shoud get the cut. It would then be in their interests to initiate efficacious economic policies and not politically correct policies that favour banks or coroporations or labour or some other special interest.

[GWiz]

I was just pointing out that natural rights like freedom of expression and association are not dependent upon having monetary support. They are irrelevant. You can still express yourself and associate with whom you choose, whether or not your employer supports you.

All I was pointing out was - "good for the goose, good for the gander" - can't complain about where one's tax dollars go without giving the opposite argument equal weight...

Look, Walkers party at the Federal level FORCED 700 BILLION DOLLARS out of tax income that could easily have been used to "support" states in bugetary crisis...

NOW, after that, to start complaining about ANYTHING related to the LOWER middle income class is the ULTIMATE in Republican Hypocracy...

AND THAT FOLKS IS THE REAL BOTTOM LINE HERE...