Monday, February 13, 2012

Rights restored

Representative Cory Mason recently argued that the recall of Governor Walker is necessary because he took away people's rights, namely those belonging to government unions.

A stronger case can be made that Governor Walker has in fact restored rights. For example, people have a right to associate with whomever they wish, or, to not associate with whom they would rather not. But government workers were forced to be dues paying union members. Their rights have been restored.

Or how about the right to equal protection of the laws? In what sense are we protected equally in the political process when one and only one favored constituency - that is, government unions - gets a special seat at the table when negotiating with government? There are times I wish I could be part of a taxpayers union that forcibly withdrew money from the accounts of all taxpayers, that in turn funneled said money to promote conservative policies and politicians, that gained power to uniquely influence government in our favor etc.... and then I realize that that would be wrong. Governor Walker has restored an equal ability to petition government to all concerned parties.

18 comments:

Sean Cranley said...

Federal Law requires that a union represent and defend every employee in the bargaining unit that has voted democratically to unionize. To have some of those people elect to not be part of the union or pay sues means that they are reaping benefits they're paying for and that's unfair. This also applies in "right to work" states, which is unfair. People should not get the benefits acheived by a union if they're not in the union and they don't pay their dues.

BradK said...

If I'm not mistaken (and I may well be), the employer has no obligation to offer the same contract to non-union employees that it does to union employees that they negotiated with.

In that point of view, it's "unfair" that the employer would offer those same terms to non-union employees. One could ask if you're advocating for less pay and benefits for non-union workers, Sean...! That's hardly championing the working class... (especially seeing as most American workers are non-union).

poke

Downtown Brown said...

@ Sean Federal Law..is just that it's a "Law". It is not however a "RIGHT". Rights can not be legislated away, they must be surrendered, or forfeited. Collective Bargaining Laws and rules can be changed by elected officials as Bills, thus changing laws. In some instances they can be changed by executive order, (see Indiana). For instance Barack Obama is trying to infringe on the RIGHTS of the Catholic Church to exercise it's 1st amendment "RIGHT" to choose how it will insure it's employees, under religious freedom. Or secondly where Prez. Obama wants to force people to purchase insurance in order to comply with the "Affordable Care Act" aka ObamaCare.

GearHead said...

"People should not get the benefits acheived by a union if they're not in the union and they don't pay their dues."

Hmmmm. Couldn't we say the same thing about most "benefits" Sean? Like teachers obtaining free pensions without having to lift a finger to fund them? Or city workers demanding health-care privileges for their shack-up mate, even though society rewards married couples with special priviledges in recognition of the stabilizing force they have on children and the family structure? Shortcutting that social contract is unfair, in my view.

So, let's reword your idiotic statement with my help: "People should not get the benefits acheived by a (sacred) union (between a man and a women) if they're not in the union and they don't pay their dues (by getting married)."

Actually your entire premise is erroneous, as usual. Like union workers are always making more than non-union workers. I say let the market decide. How? Start by paying teachers on merit, instead of time in the system and advanced degrees which don't do anything for the children, but do bloat up the pay scale quite nicely. We all know who the bottom-feeders with crappy attitudes are. Those would be the same trouble-makers you like to hang out with.

Actually, paying non-union more is easier than you think. As the workplace improves with increasing amounts of happy teachers (because they shun the loser union) the union slugs will begin to drop out and retire early because they are getting shown up daily, by those who place their passion in teaching, and not crying about how bad their lives are. Maybe the rotten teachers can retrain in whatever industry you are in, so you can see up-close how quickly your industry will go down the toilet. Something about leopards can't change their spots comes to mind.

Anonymous said...

I'm a Federal Government employee. All the "rights" taken away by the Wisconsin GOP do not exist in the Federal Government. Why aren't you, Sean Cranley, out protesting Obama for taking away my "rights"?

I am in the bargaining unit but do not participate in the Union, as is my right. Shortly after I started my job, one of the Union bosses in the local, was caught embezzling funds from the Union. The local was suspended for several months as a result. Further, the dues are outrageous and only go to politicians and Union bosses who do nothing for Federal employees. Let the Unions provide value for money and people might join. As it is, they are hopelessly corrupt and only a fool joins them.

Sean Cranley said...

Brad, I'm not an expert on labor law, but I believe that if there is a union in a bargaining unit all employees are required to be covered by the union regardless of whether they pays dues, which is unfair (see Indiana).

Wrong Brownie, people fight for rights that are established by law (see civil rights movement). Changing those laws takes those rights away. The Ninth Amendemnt to the Bill of Rights: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Oh and churches are exempt, so you're just wrong.

Gearheaded, Teachers lift their fingaers and go to work and earn their benefits, just like ecveryone else.

GH: "People should not get the benefits acheived by a (sacred) union (between a man and a women) if they're not in the union and they don't pay their dues (by getting married)." Government has no business in determining what is "sacred" or not. All long-term relationships are a "stabilizing force".

I've heard lots about merit pay, but never actually a good system for implementing it fairly. How do you determine merit for an Art teacher, or a Gym teacher, or for that matter a math teacher?

GH: "We all know who the bottom-feeders with crappy attitudes are. Those would be the same trouble-makers you like to hang out with." You're not only nasty GH, but you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Dear Ano: I'm with you, we should ban all human institutions in which corruption exists, starting with the worst offenders corporations and religious institutions. Yeah right.

BradK said...

Sean,

"Dear Ano: I'm with you, we should ban all human institutions in which corruption exists, starting with the worst offenders corporations and religious institutions. Yeah right."

And political parties. :)

Quick follow-up, if the Federal Law requires that a union represent and defend *every* employee in the bargaining unit that has voted democratically to unionize, is that in "all aspects" - because I'm pretty sure in terms of political contributions, they have violated that equal representation by giving to a side that one or more members do not support (and I don't care if it's righty or lefty, I'm just saying it doesn't represent "all" members).

B

Real Debate said...

Cranley, freedom of choice, not so much.

GearHead said...

Sean must be missing the boat on purpose, because nobody can be that obtuse.

"Government has no business in determining what is "sacred" or not." Governmental bodies for thousands of years have recognized the traditional family structure is the glue that holds society together. And the faith community has a lot to do with how that structure is recognised.

"All long-term relationships are a 'stabilizing force'." Alternative lifestyles do not stablilize childrens lives, let alone procure them. Accordingly, they shouldn't be rewarded at the taxpayers expense. This being said as me being a live-and-let-live kind of guy. When government can't recognise morality, we become an imoral country. Look around, Sean.

"You're not only nasty GH, but you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about." Getting personal means you just lost the argument. I've been on the receiving end of your nastiness. It's a group action that stirs up hate and brings ugliness to light. You were the one clanging the cowbell. Yeah, I know all about your friends. They are atrocious.

Anonymous said...

Because owning a corporation, which you can sell at any time, is the same as being coerced, with the alternative of losing your job, into being part of a union. Got ya.

Sean Cranley said...

Brad,

Members of unions have the option to opt out of paying the portion of their dues that goes for political purposes.

Gearheaded said; "We all know who the bottom-feeders with crappy attitudes are. Those would be the same trouble-makers you like to hang out with."

And then said; "Getting personal means you just lost the argument."

What a hypocrite!

Ano: Unions are established by a democratic vote Are you suggesting that I was coerced into having Scott Walker as my Governor?

BradK said...

Sean,

I understand that, but I don't think it satisfies the criteria of "equal representation". I break with some of my more conservative comrades here in that I don't believe that $$ = speech, so whether or not the money I pay in dues goes toward political contributions or not is less important than whether or not the political support that the union provides represents me, the union member (speaking hypothetically, granted, as I am not in a union myself).

B

Sean Cranley said...

Why are unions supposed to be perfect? I've belonged to all manner of organizations over the years (never a union) and I think I can safely say that NOT ONE of them has exactly reflected or represented my views, ever. I doubt one ever will.

I'm pretty sure I'm not unique in this regard. So why should democratically established unions be held to this impossible standard of perfection when no other human institutions are?

Because it's a Greedy Oligarch's Party (GOP) Plutocratic political agenda, that's why.

GearHead said...

Yet another straw argument from Sean. We aren't looking for perfection from unions. But can't they at least represent their membership? Not if it is WEAC, being they just endorsed Falk for Governor, without bothering to seek any input from the members they profess to represent. Sounds like Democrat party agenda to me. Of course they won't collaborate with all that union cash. Ha!

Sean Cranley said...

Gearheaded, not every decision by an organization can be put to a popular vote, that's why they elect representatives, just like we do for our government. But of course that doesn't matter to you, any excuse to abolish unions, like their endorsement of Falk (who cares?) is good enough for the hypocritical likes of you.

BradK said...

Sean,

I don't assert that unions need to be perfect by any means. I was actually just asking (because I truly do not know) how the federal law applies to the manners by which unions "represent and defend" (equally, I would assume) their members when it comes to political activities.

FWIW, I'm neither anti-union nor desire to abolish any unions. My grandfather worked his a** and skills up to the level of Master Plumber in Milwaukee, and he was extremely proud of it, as am I. My questions and interests are around real or perceived cronyism that can, may, or does occur within an organization that has so much money and influence running through it. Whether that cronyism is corporate, union, religious or partisan, I'm plain-old-fashioned against it, and welcome regulatory controls and aggressive prosecution and punishment.

GearHead said...

"not every decision by an organization can be put to a popular vote, that's why they elect representatives, just like we do for our government."

What was the hurry, anyway, being the primary is months away? (Hint: the union didn't care what its members thought, that's why they didn't ask!)

So shouldn't that same argument apply after Vos cuts off public comment on the budget after enduring over 100 hours of unpresedented freak-show crybaby complaining? Noooooo, according to your ilk. You were deprived your right to comment. At least Vos gave you 100 hours. WEAC gave the teachers NOTHING! Hippocrate!

Anonymous said...

"and then I realize that that would be wrong."

A man of principle will be defeated by lies and deception everytime.

You'll NEVER win with a liberal. Compromise is just there way to move in increments what they can't get in steps.

Morality has no place in politics, for liberals. Understand that, and NEVER compromise.