Discussion for article #238020
âThe Center for Individual Rights, a conservative group working with the plaintiffs, argues that even basic union goals such as negotiating pay raises and boosting school budgets can clash with the political and educational beliefs of many teachers.â
OK, show of hands. Which of you teachers wants to negotiate your own pay/benefits? Donât be shy!
7 Likes
Alito said a âbedrock principleâ of the First Amendment is that âno person in this country may be compelled to subsidize speech by a third party that he or she does not wish to support.â
âŚ
The union says the fees are necessary because it has a legal duty to represent all teachers at the bargaining table, even those who are not part of the union.
So it is okay to compel a third party to represent and support a person, but it is not okay to compel that person to pay the third party for those services? Uh-huh.
5 Likes
As private sector union membership has steadily declined over the past four decades, unions representing government workers have emerged as a powerful force in organized labor. But they have come under increasing attack as officials in Wisconsin and other states blame them for generous pension and benefit packages that cash-strapped governments no longer can afford.
-
States decide to go cheap on labor by not paying prevailing private-sector wages, but add more generous benefits to make up for that.
-
Said sates then proceed to under-fund or not at all fund said benefits (often to pay for tax cuts).
-
When the bill starts coming due, blame those greedy unions for demanding such generous benefits and look to slash them because âtheyâre unaffordableâ
-
Harness the outrage from making people jealous of the better union benefits (which are getting cut) to then attack and (further) undermine unions.
Itâs quite a scam they have goingâŚ
7 Likes
But, according to the shtheads who are bringing this and creating âRight To Moochâ, they can negotiate those services just as well, if not BETTER, than the Union! As someone who worked in a Union and was a member of the Teamsters, I cannot tell you just how angry this makes me. I swear, every single one of these shtheads who thinks the union isnât doing a damn thing for them but then receives a check that was negotiated for them needs to leave the Union and the benefits behind. Just go but do let us know how your standard of living is going without the Unionâs bargaining power.
See, as far as Iâm concerned, THIS is the hill Dems need to stand and possibly die on. Not so much trade deals (although we can question and fight for better terms with them).
3 Likes
Alito said a âbedrock principleâ of the First Amendment is that âno person in this country may be compelled to subsidize speech by a third party that he or she does not wish to supportââŚ"
âŚunless itâs taxpayers being compelled to support religious speech through private school vouchers.
Thatâs okeedokee. Because Jesus. Or something.
2 Likes
- Harness the outrage from making people jealous of the better union
benefits (which are getting cut) to then attack and (further) undermine
unions.
EXACTLY what San Diego did in 2012. The City put it to a vote and a majority decided to cut city workersâ pensions.
I mean, of course. We start attacking each other like starving dogs searching for the last bone.
4 Likes
Sorry, but I just canât defend collective bargaining for public sector workers. Unions exist to protect the interests of labor against the power of capital. However, in the case of public sector unions, the taxpayer is the employer. If public sector employees donât feel they are being fairly treated they can take their complaints directly to the public, a mode of recourse unavailable to public sector workers. More importantly, public sector unions contribute to government inefficiency by severely restricting our ability to reform our own government.
Get rid of all of them, including and especially the police unions, who somehow always seem to get a pass (looking at you, Scott Walker).
You say this like having the schizophrenic âWe want the best/fastest service possible, but we donât want to pay for itâ American public calling the shots on ones compensation is an advantage.
edit: I remember working in a Public Library during college and grad. school and even with a Library System with a dozen branches serving a population of roughly half a million people I remember folks who were shocked that the entire thing wasnât run by unpaid volunteers or outraged that the Director brought in a salary in the low six figures. And that is with a government service that people like, can you image if workers at the DMV or the IRS were dependent on the benevolence of the American Public for decent/competitive wages or benefits? No, the fact that public sector workersâ employer is nominally the American public in no way alleviates the need of public sector workers to band together to advance their interests.
3 Likes
And yet, Justice Alito, I as a taxpayer am compelled to subsidize your reactionary political speech that I do not wish to support.
1 Like
Itâs not an advantage. Itâs an simple acknowledgement of who is working for whom. The American people should have the ability to determine how their institutions should be run. By allowing collective bargaining in the public sector you interfere with this ability. So no wonder that citizens become disconnected and apathetic. Collective bargaining blocks a citizenâs ability to affect government with his/her vote.
I do think that you could still have public sector unions without collective bargaining. The role of these unions would be to advocate to politicians, the media and the public. If they think theyâre not paid enough, they can make that case. If they think work could be organized more efficiently, they could make that case as well. So, I donât disagree that they should be able to âband together to advance their interestsâ, but that does not need to include collective bargaining.
[quote=âSydney, post:11, topic:23293â]
Itâs an simple acknowledgement of who is working for whom. Private businessâs should have the ability to determine how their business should be run. By allowing collective bargaining in the private sector you interfere with this ability.
[/quote]Change a few words and you have the exact same argument people use to undermine Unions in the private sector. It is just as unpersuasive when applied to the public sector as the private.
The American people have the ability to determine how their institutions are run, collective bargaining doesnât interfere with that. Collective bargaining just means they have to negotiate with those they seek to employ to do that work with regards to the terms and conditions of that employment, the same as anyone else who seeks to take on Unionized employees.
2 Likes
And how would they do that? And how could âthe publicâ respond? Seriously, how is this supposed to work?
2 Likes
Whether weâre talking about public sector or private sector, these are legitimate criticisms of unions. These concerns need to be balanced against the likelihood and severity of the potential abuses that unions serve as a counterweight against. My argument is that the potential for abuse and the modes of recourse available are different in the public sector than in the private sector and can lead to different conclusions about the overall social cost or benefit of union activity. In the public sector I think unions can have a positive role to play, but on balance they should not be engaged in collective bargaining.
Uh, no, the fact that unions keep either private businesses or the government from doing whatever they want regardless of the consequences for their employees isnât a legitimate criticism of unions, it is the entire reason we have them. Employeeâs arenât slaves they have every right to negotiate the terms of their employment and if they choose to team together to increase their leverage in those negotiations they also have the right of free association to facilitate that.
Your right there is a different potential for abuse. In the private sector they only have to worry about abuse in the name of chasing the bottom line. In the public sector they have to worry about abuse in the name of cutting costs and from grand-standing politicians looking to put on a show for the voters.