Is it over for the unions?

[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.

[SOREHOOF]

I don't think she's ever been in a Union. I have.
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am10.html

[Riot]

Originally Posted by wiphan

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.

Well, it would be so much easier for you, I'm sure, if you wouldn't misread or misstate what I've said, or say I've said things that I have not. Just a suggestion

[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