Neal Anderth wrote:Walker didn't run on a platform of stripping state employees of their collective bargaining rights, he won on a platform that included cutting pay and benefits. Had he stuck to that it would never have come to this.

And, you know that the unions would have just rolled over, how?

Beyond that, this is a means to rescue the education system from poor teachers.

Beyond that, why should public school teachers have the right to bargain for wages?

I followed the story close enough to know. The elimination of collective bargaining rights is what fueled the protests, not the spending cuts.

How can anyone be denied the right to organize and express themselves? (btw I'm only interested in a voucher system)

Walker is a 'bridge too far' kind of guy, if he keeps it up he's not going to be able to govern on any issue.

Neal Anderth wrote:I followed the story close enough to know. The elimination of collective bargaining rights is what fueled the protests, not the spending cuts.

How can anyone be denied the right to organize and express themselves? (btw I'm only interested in a voucher system)

Walker is a 'bridge too far' kind of guy, if he keeps it up he's not going to be able to govern on any issue.

We will see how it turns out. I think you're wrong.

Doctor Fate wrote:And, you know that the unions would have just rolled over, how?

The unions offered to accept the increased benefit rates if collective bargaining was kept.

Beyond that, this is a means to rescue the education system from poor teachers.

The prime reason for the bill is to deal with a large budget deficit, following tax cuts in 2003 and another set this January.

Beyond that, why should public school teachers have the right to bargain for wages?

Surely the question should be why should they be denied collective bargaining? Why should any employee not be able to organise with their peers to negotiate together?

It is not just teachers, by the way.

danivon

The prime reason for the bill is to deal with a large budget deficit, following tax cuts in 2003 and another set this January

What ? You're saying that tax cuts didn't result in higher tax revenues? How can that be?

danivon

It is not just teachers, by the way

Its everyone but the fire fighters and police... And they joined the protestors anyway.

By the way, a famous leftie by the name of Governor Christie of new Jersey says that "collective bargaining" is a very good thing.

Are businesses allowed to "Collectively bargain"? What would the uproar be if all the businesses joined together and gave a joint offer to the unions.

Isn't that double sided?

That's a remarkably silly argument GA. The reason collective bargaining came about in the first place was because employers have vastly more power than individual employees in negotiations.

Besides which, you'd never get a group of employers clubbing together to put a joint offer to the unions because it probably wouldn't be in their interests to be paying exactly the same as their competitors.

I have to agree Green. It is a silly argument. My problem with public sector unions though is two fold. First and foremost is their political involvement. Three of the top Five political contributors in the 2010 election were unions representing public sector employees. Therefore, the Union is using it's money to influence who they are going to be negotiating against. It's like the comment Chris Christie said about John Corzine. Corzine appeared before a rally of public union workers in Trenton were he said, "I promise I will fight to get you the best contract possible." Since the Governor was who the unions would be negotiating against, it wouldn't be that big of a fight. Private unions do not have that kind of influence.

The second problem I have, and this is with Unions in general, is having the dues deducted from the pay check by employers and then given to the unions. The Union should be responsible for collecting its own dues.

I agree that it is not in the best interest of the companies to pay the same. Juxtaposing...

Is it in the best interest of employees to be paid the same? A better auto worker/teacher/policeman should be paid better, wouldn't you think? Don't you think a better teacher should be retained over a worse teacher?

Unfortunately, that is not the way it happens. The employees are treated all the same, and not based upon their merits. A teacher is laid off/terminated by the LHFF method (Last hired/First fired). If a great teacher was the last hired, and a non-caring burned-out teacher has tenure, the children are the ones who suffer this burned out teacher. Is that what the Union supporters want? I would hope they had the best interest of the children at heart.

What could people be afraid of in using merit for pay rather than collective bargaining?

You don't have to do away with collective bargaining in order to change some of the more egregious practices of a unionized workforce. I agree that the closed shop model is wrong, but there's a difference between mandating union membership and removing the right of the workers to organise altogether.

If a shop CHOOSES to unionize, it should not be stopped. However, if an employer CHOOSES to not employ union workers that should not be an issue either.

The problem with union versus management is that it is usually an adversarial arangement.
Where it is more of a collaborative relationship unions can actually help a company make productivity gains. (I'm thinking of German unions colaborating with factories here.)

Strikes and distruptions are an out dated mechanism for settling labour disputes anyway. What would be more productive where each side of a dispute gets to take their final offer to an independent judge who then has to choose one side or the other. (No arbitration just one side or the other) Legally the offer the judge decides is most appropriate becomes a binding contract at that point for the next year.
The risk in losing would force both sides to bargain in good faith, and make realistic offers.
By taking strikess and lock outs out of the arsenal of bargaining, this process would tend to make the unions and management more rationale and collaborative.

Well, I've worked in an industry where there was collective bargaining with the employers and unions. I've no problem with it, although I tend to think, like Sass, that most companies would rather not as it would not only involve companies losing their competitive edge against each other, but it would also require them to share information with each other.

On the other points:

Closed Shops - I disagree with them. They had a time and a place, and that was a long time ago. If people wish to remain outside the union, that's up to them. But if they do, the union should not have to negotiate on their behalf.

Dues - I see no good reason why dues should come out of a pay packet. If anything, all I've ever seen is people paying their union dues directly to the union.

Political involvement - Sorry, but I don't see a problem with unions representing any workers being politically involved. Again, it's about freedom of association and expression. Mind you, I would rather that US unions gave their support to a party that was more closely aligned with the interests of the working classes, rather than the Democrats, but as you don't really have such a party...

Strikes - these are never the first choice for a union, but they are a powerful last resort, if members will stick with it. To remove them from the 'arsenal of bargaining' would hog-tie unions and their members. Employers, as you note, already have the larger side of the power relationship.

Employment rights - Sorry, GA, but I really think that it would be well out of order for an employer to be able to refuse to employ (or to sack) someone for being a union member. Again, it's about freedom of association.

danivon wrote:Dues - I see no good reason why dues should come out of a pay packet. If anything, all I've ever seen is people paying their union dues directly to the union.

Well in this country, public employee union dues are deducted by the state/municipality/school district and then transferred to the Union.

danivon wrote:Political involvement - Sorry, but I don't see a problem with unions representing any workers being politically involved.

The problem is that you no longer have a management looking out for the best interest of the stake holders, i.e. the Taxpayers, in favor of the unions that made it possible for them to get elected.

danivon wrote: Again, it's about freedom of association and expression.

I currently belong to a Federally chartered fraternal partriotic organization called the Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War. The authorizing statute that creates the Sons specifically prohibits any political activity by the organization. Nobody has a problem with it. Why can't this be transposed on to unions.

Further, when Unions are taking political positions you could have a workers mandatory dues being used to support political positions (s)he disagrees with.

The problem is that you no longer have a management looking out for the best interest of the stake holders, i.e. the Taxpayers, in favor of the unions that made it possible for them to get elected.

This argument applies to all forms of political funding though doesn't it ? I appreciate the conflict of interest argument, but surely if a candidate is receiving massive funding from special interest groups and is then carrying out legislation which affects those interest groups (ie, almost all politicians) then he/she is in precisely the same position. So would you therefore support legislation banning corporations and wealthy individuals contributing enormous sums to political campaigns ?