Thousands protest Wisconsin anti-union bill

[Orogeny]

Negotiation is about give and take. If you have a party no willing to bargain in good faith, then you cannot negotiate. Schwarzenegger is a prime example of this. SEIU Local 1000 was willing to negotiate some giveaways to the state, but Schwarzenegger and his Republican allies in the legislature demonstrated that there is no good-faith bargaining with Republicans.

I’m not talking about negotiating, I am talking about offering to take the exact changes the bill calls for, but do it voluntarily. That way, there is no reason to cancel the contract. If the governor does so anyway, then the cries of union busting may have some validity. As it is, you have what I and many, many others consider very reasonable changes being forced on the unions AND they will lose their ability to collectively bargain for those benefits.

Peace

Tim

 

[SamH]

The fact is that organized labor in this country is at death’s door. One can only wonder how much improved the labor situation of ordinary Americans would be if we still had vigorous unions…

I can’t help but wonder how much WORSE our labor situation would be if we still had vigorous unions

 

[imbroglio]

It’s nothing but a race to the bottom. Nobody asks the question why can’t I have what they do, they just want to know why somebody has it a little better. Heck corporations don’t have to run misinformation campaigns anymore when they have other workers that do it for them without charging a dime from their advertising budget.

ChadS

Sad but true.

 

[a_priori]

It’s no accident that the greatest advancement in living standards of middle class American workers occurred during the period when the unions were strongest.

This is exactly correct. Then the influence of unions (especially public-sector ones) drifted out of the therapeutic range into the toxic range. These levels of salary and retirement benefits are simply unsustainable. They still exist now solely because of government’s ability to borrow. Governments are now running on fumes. We are here because politicians gave away the store in a quid pro quo with unions. I know, I had a front row seat. Those politicians had a lot of fun at the party and now they are gone. Now, some hapless politicians who can see through the fog and stench at the inevitable fate of this system are trying to do something. They are trying to save the ship and are derided for it. There is nothing more frustrating in life than having to fight someone in order to help them.

Why college kids aren’t demonstrating in the streets over the shafting their generation is headed for is beyond me.

 

[ChadS]

I’m not talking about negotiating, I am talking about offering to take the exact changes the bill calls for, but do it voluntarily. That way, there is no reason to cancel the contract. If the governor does so anyway, then the cries of union busting may have some validity. As it is, you have what I and many, many others consider very reasonable changes being forced on the unions AND they will lose their ability to collectively bargain for those benefits.

Peace

Tim

In collective bargaining the contract doesn’t get cancelled. Each and every contract has an agreed upon lifespan and sometimes during the lifespan of a contract some items may be re-negotiated at the request of either union or management. What you’re calling for is labor to just willy nilly take the recommendations of management and accept at face value everything they have to say. The union is saying not so fast. I’d be willing to bet that probably 99% of that contract will remain unchanged as it has since the union was formed.

Why should labor take at face value the requests of management? The fact is they shouldn’t.

ChadS

 

[imbroglio]

This is exactly correct. Then the influence of unions (especially public-sector ones) drifted out of the therapeutic range into the toxic range. These levels of salary and retirement benefits are simply unsustainable. They still exist now solely because of government’s ability to borrow. Governments are now running on fumes. We are here because politicians gave away the store in a quid pro quo with unions. I know, I had a front row seat. Those politicians had a lot of fun at the party and now they are gone. Now, some hapless politicians who can see through the fog and stench at the inevitable fate of this system are trying to do something. They are trying to save the ship and are derided for it. There is nothing more frustrating in life than having to fight someone in order to help them.

Why college kids aren’t demonstrating in the streets over the shafting their generation is headed for is beyond me.

t
They are in Madison.

 

[Orogeny]

Why should labor take at face value the requests of management? The fact is they shouldn’t.

ChadS

The fact is is that they have to. They can do it willingly or they can lose some of their collective bargaining ability AND have to make the changes that “managment” is calling for. Their choice.

If they do so willingly, perhaps they keep their collective bargaining ability and, if the economy gets better and money becomes available, they can re-gain that which they gave up. As it stands now, they will not get that chance.

Peace

Tim

 

[imbroglio]

Dear imbroglio and LCMS_No_More,

I am a retired public employee union member with a pension and health benefits. I served as a union officer and was a member of the union negotiating committee. I testified at arbitration hearings on behalf of my union. I still pay union dues. I want you to pay very close attention so there is no confusion or ambiguity: A-D-D-I-C-T-S. If you have a problem with that, go join a union, rise to leadership and then come back and talk to me. If you are a union leader and still think unions are not the problem, you have been “assimilated by the Borg” and further discussion is meaningless.

Should we assume you are in recovery?

 

[a_priori]

t
They are in Madison.

They are demonstrating in Madison on behalf of their teacher’s unions? They seek to support the same unions that very well may contribute to them being in a deeper financial hole as a generation. Brilliant!!

 

[a_priori]

Should we assume you are in recovery?

I come from a long line of working class Democrats. I would simply like to see the pendulum of American economic/political life spend some time in the middle. Not hard to one side with child labor, ungodly hours and worker mistreatment or hard on the other side with insularity, misplaced priorites and expectations of getting more and giving less. If wanting the pendulum in the middle is a crime, I’m guilty.

 

[j1akey]

The fact is is that they have to. They can do it willingly or they can lose some of their collective bargaining ability AND have to make the changes that “managment” is calling for. Their choice.

If they do so willingly, perhaps they keep their collective bargaining ability and, if the economy gets better and money becomes available, they can re-gain that which they gave up. As it stands now, they will not get that chance.

Peace

Tim

I think it’s highly unlikely that they would just get back what they give up. That doesn’t historically happen.

It’s not like teachers make any kind of unreasonable wage on the high end of things here and they shouldn’t give up a thing. We ask ALOT of public employees, especially teachers and this is basically a slap in the face to them.

 

[estesbob]

I can’t help but wonder how much WORSE our labor situation would be if we still had vigorous unions

If they dont have the money to pay them it doesnt matter how vigorous the Union is. How do you suggest the State come up with the money to pay them?

 

[SamH]

They are demonstrating in Madison on behalf of their teacher’s unions? They seek to support the same unions that very well may contribute to them being in a deeper financial hole as a generation. Brilliant!!

Teachers are pulling classrooms of students out of the school and hauling them to the protests. They can’t teach Johnny to read or write but they can indoctrinate him.

weeklystandard.com/blogs/wisconsin-teachers-take-students-class-protest_550230.html

 

[imbroglio]

They are demonstrating in Madison on behalf of their teacher’s unions? They seek to support the same unions that very well may contribute to them being in a deeper financial hole as a generation. Brilliant!!

The teacher’s union are putting college kids in the hole? You might have noticed that the firefighters and police unions are exempt since they endorsed the governor. Hmmmmm. Of course they are out there, too.
It’s about union busting. Pure and simple.

 

[Orogeny]

I think it’s highly unlikely that they would just get back what they give up. That doesn’t historically happen.

I don’t disagree, but highly unlikely is better than not possible, right?

It’s not like teachers make any kind of unreasonable wage on the high end of things here and they shouldn’t give up a thing. We ask ALOT of public employees, especially teachers and this is basically a slap in the face to them.

No, it is a reflection on the economic realities of the current times. As the governor noted, he could lay them off. That would clearly not be a better solution.

Peace

Tim

 

[j1akey]

They are demonstrating in Madison on behalf of their teacher’s unions? They seek to support the same unions that very well may contribute to them being in a deeper financial hole as a generation. Brilliant!!

The arguement that unions are the reason that companies and governments go broke is old, tired and just untrue. The unions have been in place for a LONG time. They didn’t just suddenly make everyone go broke.

 

[SamH]

If they dont have the money to pay them it doesnt matter how vigorous the Union is. How do you suggest the State come up with the money to pay them?

As answered by prior: Compel the Angels to descend with bags of cash to pay the bills

And I thought a little prayer would help too.

 

[estesbob]

As answered by prior: Compel the Angels to descend with bags of cash to pay the bills

And I thought a little prayer would help too.

if Angels are going to be dropping off cash they need to stop by here first!

 

[Brendan]

[The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church](http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...oc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html#Origin and meaning)

Chapter 4 Part 3

OK Here is the text

Please point out where it states that universal destination entitles workers to increase their material wellbeing

It requires that a person be entitled to have their human needs met. Is it your claim that WI is proposiing wages below human sustenance levels?

In addition, please note that the Church agrees that legal interventions are necessary to regulate this right (bolded text). That is precisely what WI is doing,

This is the foundation of the universal destination of the earth’s goods. The earth, by reason of its fruitfulness and its capacity to satisfy human needs, is God’s first gift for the sustenance of human life”[361]. The human person cannot do without the material goods that correspond to his primary needs and constitute the basic conditions for his existence; these goods are absolutely indispensable if he is to feed himself, grow, communicate, associate with others, and attain the highest purposes to which he is called[362].

1. The universal right to use the goods of the earth is based on the principle of the universal destination of goods. Each person must have access to the level of well-being necessary for his full development. The right to the common use of goods is the “first principle of the whole ethical and social order” [363] and “the characteristic principle of Christian social doctrine”[364]. For this reason the Church feels bound in duty to specify the nature and characteristics of this principle. It is first of all a natural right, inscribed in human nature and not merely a positive right connected with changing historical circumstances; moreover it is an “inherent” [365] right. It is innate in individual persons, in every person, and has priority with regard to any human intervention concerning goods, to any legal system concerning the same, to any economic or social system or method: “All other rights, whatever they are, including property rights and the right of free trade must be subordinated to this norm [the universal destination of goods]; they must not hinder it, but must rather expedite its application. It must be considered a serious and urgent social obligation to refer these rights to their original purpose”[366].

1. Putting the principal of the universal destination of goods into concrete practice, according to the different cultural and social contexts, means that methods, limits and objects must be precisely defined. Universal destination and utilization of goods do not mean that everything is at the disposal of each person or of all people, or that the same object may be useful or belong to each person or all people. If it is true that everyone is born with the right to use the goods of the earth, it is likewise true that, in order to ensure that this right is exercised in an equitable and orderly fashion, regulated interventions are necessary, interventions that are the result of national and international agreements, and a juridical order that adjudicates and specifies the exercise of this right.

No. It imposes upon people like Bill Gates the moral obligation to share with those less fortunate his tremendous wealth.

At what income level ( in dollars please) does the right to gain more material wellbeing become the obligation to share.

 

[SamH]

The arguement that unions are the reason that companies and governments go broke is old, tired and just untrue. The unions have been in place for a LONG time. They didn’t just suddenly make everyone go broke.

Agreed. It took them years to do it.

Remember the movie Norma Rae? It was based on the true story about the unionization of the textile mills in Alabama. The movie ended with the workers happily unionized and paying their dues. But 20 years later textile mills that had existed since before the Civil War had all disappeared - along with their union paying jobs. Over 150 years of industrialization and the corresponding jobs were gone in just two decades leaving behind unemployment and crime.