Is it over for the unions?

[Riot]

Private unions have been losing membership over the years and have decreased in strength because too many companies have gone out of business as a result of union demands.

Collective bargaining is a 50-50 proposition. It is pure, libertarian, self-interested capitalism at it's finest. Each side comes to the table looking out for it's own financial self-interests.

You must also blame the companies for being terrible businessmen, bargaining and agreeing to pay for things it turns out they could not afford, as their bad business decisions about their companies caused their companies to lose money.

Blaming the unions because businessmen sucked at being businessmen doesn't really fly.

[Princess Doreen]

Originally Posted by Riot

Collective bargaining is a 50-50 proposition. It is pure, libertarian, self-interested capitalism at it's finest. Each side comes to the table looking out for it's own financial self-interests.

You must also blame the companies for being terrible businessmen, bargaining and agreeing to pay for things it turns out they could not afford, as their bad business decisions about their companies caused their companies to lose money.

Blaming the unions because businessmen sucked at being businessmen doesn't really fly.

The government is worse at attempting to run a business only they're not going to run out of money because they'll just keep taxing to pay for their over spending.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Princess Doreen

The government is worse at attempting to run a business only they're not going to run out of money because they'll just keep taxing to pay for their over spending.

That's why the best run governments (cities, towns, villages, etc) hire professional managers to tend to the budget and business, while the elected officials do politics.

I recall that some of the newer young policemen of the town I grew up within wanted to unionize. Now, these police and firemen had always been well-paid, with good benefits. As this town grew, the money grew, it was well-managed, and everyone benefited: everything was well-funded: great schools, great parks, great public works, great public servants w/good equipment. So nobody saw the need for a union.

Finally the cops who wanted to unionize, got to unionize. The cops who didn't, did not. The union cops bargained their own agreement, even while management was telling them they would get more in the end if they didn't collectively bargain. They didn't believe it. Three years later, the police and fire who didn't collectively bargain, but just depended upon regular COLA and raises, were earning about $2,000 a year more per pay grade than the union guys.

[somerfrost]

Unions literally saved the lives of thousands of workers and enabled them to provide for their families. Over time, unions have become less responsive to their members and more political. That needs to change but there will always be a need for unions as the myth of "trickle down" will never become a reality without the ability of workers to stand up to the rich.

[wiphan]

Originally Posted by Riot

That's why the best run governments (cities, towns, villages, etc) hire professional managers to tend to the budget and business, while the elected officials do politics.

I recall that some of the newer young policemen of the town I grew up within wanted to unionize. Now, these police and firemen had always been well-paid, with good benefits. As this town grew, the money grew, it was well-managed, and everyone benefited: everything was well-funded: great schools, great parks, great public works, great public servants w/good equipment. So nobody saw the need for a union.

Finally the cops who wanted to unionize, got to unionize. The cops who didn't, did not. The union cops bargained their own agreement, even while management was telling them they would get more in the end if they didn't collectively bargain. They didn't believe it. Three years later, the police and fire who didn't collectively bargain, but just depended upon regular COLA and raises, were earning about $2,000 a year more per pay grade than the union guys.

So things actually work without unions? and sometimes for the better? So why the argument so much for unions to be able to collectively bargain?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by wiphan

So things actually work without unions? and sometimes for the better? So why the argument so much for unions to be able to collectively bargain?

Because people have the right to collectively bargain. You know, that Constitution thingy ...

[SOREHOOF]

Originally Posted by Riot

Because people have the right to collectively bargain. You know, that Constitution thingy ...

I can't let this slide. Where in the wild, wild, world of sports does the Constitution breathe one word about "collective bargaining"? Help me out here Riot.

[wiphan]

Originally Posted by SOREHOOF

I can't let this slide. Where in the wild, wild, world of sports does the Constitution breathe one word about "collective bargaining"? Help me out here Riot.

I was wondering if anyone else would comment on this. I honestly have given up trying to reason with Riot especially when she makes comments like collective bargaining is a protected right in the constitution. Her statements mostly speak for themselves.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by SOREHOOF

I can't let this slide. Where in the wild, wild, world of sports does the Constitution breathe one word about "collective bargaining"? Help me out here Riot.

Wow. I forgot you were so literal. Sorry.

I never said the right to form a union was contained in the Constitution. The Constitution lays out the basic tenets of the laws of our land. The Supreme Court interprets laws we make in light of the Constitution. The right to form unions, and to collectively bargain, has been deemed legal under our Constitutional rights for decades.

And yes, I recall that I was a member of a union for 4 years in my 20's. ASFCME

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Collective bargaining is a 50-50 proposition. It is pure, libertarian, self-interested capitalism at it's finest. Each side comes to the table looking out for it's own financial self-interests.

except when there is no business or businessmen at the table.

Wisconsin is busting public employee unions not private unions.

When you have public union workers 'bargaining' with union backed politicians there is more stealing than bargaining going on and the private tax payer is on the hook. There is no motivation to cut but rather grow. There is no production just consumption. Government should hire private companies willing to bid on everything from education to janitorial work. Walker is a hero to his constituents now. He wasn't going to ever win your type over anyway. So refreshing to see a politician follow thru on promises.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

except when there is no business or businessmen at the table.

And that's not the union's fault, is it?

[Clip-Clop]

The nice thing is, and a few of the teachers will realize this now, the lack of collective bargaining leaves a spot open for individual bargaining. No longer will good teachers (a rare and amazing thing in this world) be lumped in with those that wound up teaching. They will be able to shine and be properly rewarded based on their merits and not those, or lack thereof, around them. Good employees want NOTHING to do with unions. Not anymore.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

The nice thing is, and a few of the teachers will realize this now, the lack of collective bargaining leaves a spot open for individual bargaining. No longer will good teachers (a rare and amazing thing in this world) be lumped in with those that wound up teaching. They will be able to shine and be properly rewarded based on their merits and not those, or lack thereof, around them. Good employees want NOTHING to do with unions. Not anymore.

Wow, what an over simplification....and I reject the hypothesis that good teachers are rare. As a whole teachers are among the best that society has to offer.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Wow, what an over simplification....and I reject the hypothesis that good teachers are rare. As a whole teachers are among the best that society has to offer.

Good people for sure. I hold nothing personal against the group. I remember the good teachers from my education, of the many that I have had, very few stick out as good. Those that do are a rare breed. A great teacher is not common despite what people might want to believe. Greatness is not more common in a noble profession just because it is noble. It is an art.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

Good people for sure. I hold nothing personal against the group. I remember the good teachers from my education, of the many that I have had, very few stick out as good. Those that do are a rare breed. A great teacher is not common despite what people might want to believe. Greatness is not more common in a noble profession just because it is noble. It is an art.

I disagree. Good and great teachers are the norm. Bad teachers are rare.

You have to hand it to the Republicans - they sure are good at building straw men and demons out of kindergarten teachers

[hoovesupsideyourhead]

try it with the ibew..lights out

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

And that's not the union's fault, is it?

of course not that's why ALL GOV contracts bar the justice department and defense should be open for lowest bid? Save OUR money?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

of course not that's why ALL GOV contracts bar the justice department and defense should be open for lowest bid? Save OUR money?

I don't understand what that has to do with unions and who is at the bargaining table, but I agree. Although I don't think lowest bid should always being the deciding factor (controversy over Lockheed using prison labor to assemble some Patriot missile parts for example)

I learned this today (Washington Post):

At a time when basic public employee union activities in state governments are under attack, Uncle Sam is staging what labor leaders say is the largest federal union organizing effort in history.

In contrast to Wisconsin and Ohio, where conservative politicians want to strip labor organizations of certain collective bargaining rights, 44,000 federal transportation security officers will be able to vote to choose a union, or no union, during a six-week period beginning Wednesday.

Two unions, the AFL-CIO-affiliated American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) and the independent National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), are on the ballot, as is the option of no union. If none of the three options gets a majority, there will be a run-off.

A win on this would be huge, for the union movement and for screeners, who've had to cope with terrible work conditions such as working split shifts—three hours on, four hours off, three hours back at work.

The vote ends April 19th.

[AeWingnut]

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by AeWingnut