National Guard May Deploy as Socialists, Unions Wreak Havoc in Wisconsin

[RonPaulCult]

Can someone explain to me in simplified form what is really meant by collective bargaining? I know vaguely what it is in theory, but in this sitch we have government workers already working for the largest unions that exist, state and federal government.

What is it that collective bargaining affords them? If anything it seems that it affords the whatever dream conditions they dream up!
Would G officials not sit down and talk with them without said collective bargaining?

I've never joined a union in my life, though I have nothing against the concept of syndicalist workers unions, AS LONG AS they meet the following limitations:


1. They are completely voluntary and non-coercive.
2. They do not set legal policy in the state or region in which they function. Private companies that are not union should still have the right to underbid. Follows with voluntary assumption prior.


I once had the idea that maybe the federal government should start it's own enterprise to raise money for itself and then use its own money for industrial contracts. Unionists can work there.

There are too many creeping little problems to fight one at a time. What we need is a metaplan or umbrella plan that can be used to obviate every other problem.

Plans for nullification and strategies for Galt plans should supersede all other issues.
Besides that, use the "voluntary" card.

It means instead of negotiating the terms of employment, wages, and other matters on a one-by-one basis between employee and employer, the employees join together and negotiate as one with the employer.

In a FREE society, employees are allowed to join a union and demand to negotiate as a union. This is a natural, universal right of freedom of association, which we as liberty lovers are supposed to cherish.

Also in a FREE society, an employer has the right to refuse to negotiate with a union. The employer can fire them all. The employer can say either come negotiate on your own or take a hike.

That's why a free society is fair. The employees can stay true to the union, and the employer loses all of its employees, even the ones it doesn't want to lose, or the employee can decide the union isn't for them.

The protesters in WI are CORRECT and I support them, though few people here are willing to do so because they hate unions too much (I hate them also).

The reason they are correct is because the bill is not allowing them to negotiate as a union any longer. They have a right to do so. And the government has a right to fire them, if they so choose.

But the government wants to make it so that the employees can still be MEMBERS of the union, and yet not USE that union to negotiate. The government wants it both ways.

Rights are being violated in the cheese state - mark my words.

 

[Mini-Me]

These protestors should move to where they would be the happiest. Communist China!!!

Well, technically China is more state capitalist now. They're a lot closer to fascism than Communism nowadays...but anyway.

 

[georgiaboy]

anyone besides me sensing a double standard in the way these protests are being MSM'd, vs. the heckling at CPAC?

 

[Mini-Me]

It means instead of negotiating the terms of employment, wages, and other matters on a one-by-one basis between employee and employer, the employees join together and negotiate as one with the employer.

In a FREE society, employees are allowed to join a union and demand to negotiate as a union. This is a natural, universal right of freedom of association, which we as liberty lovers are supposed to cherish.

Also in a FREE society, an employer has the right to refuse to negotiate with a union. The employer can fire them all. The employer can say either come negotiate on your own or take a hike.

That's why a free society is fair. The employees can stay true to the union, and the employer loses all of its employees, even the ones it doesn't want to lose, or the employee can decide the union isn't for them.

The protesters in WI are CORRECT and I support them, though few people here are willing to do so because they hate unions too much (I hate them also).

The reason they are correct is because the bill is not allowing them to negotiate as a union any longer. They have a right to do so. And the government has a right to fire them, if they so choose.

But the government wants to make it so that the employees can still be MEMBERS of the union, and yet not USE that union to negotiate. The government wants it both ways.

Rights are being violated in the cheese state - mark my words.

I guess this is what Josh was referring to by the legitimate concerns? If that's the case, the bill is pretty silly; I mean, all the government needs to do is say "no, thanks" to the union without passing a law. That is, of course, unless existing laws granting unions special privileges prevent them from doing so, but that would just be grounds for finally eliminating all the special privileges and coercive powers that unions currently enjoy.

 

[RonPaulCult]

The comments are calling these thugs patriots. So I guess the new definition of "patriot" is one who is willing to use the force of government to take from one group to another privileged group.

Their rights are being violated, and they are fighting for their rights.

The government is trying to make it so that they don't have the right to act as a union.

They DO have that right. And the government has the right to fire them (but won't act on THAT right - they'd rather just legislate away the rights of the workers)

I support the union in this case, and I think all of us here should support them. We should be there with them.

We must stand up for the rights of even those we despise the most.

From the bill:

Under current law, University of Wisconsin (UW) System employees,
employees of the UW Hospitals and Clinics Authority, and certain home care and
child care providers have the right to collectively bargain over wages, hours, and
conditions of employment. This bill eliminates the rights of these employees to
collectively bargain

Maybe we should rename this "Eliminate the rights" of people forums.

 

[RonPaulCult]

I guess this is what Josh was referring to by the legitimate concerns? If that's the case, the bill is pretty silly; I mean, all the government needs to do is say "no, thanks" to the union without passing a law. That is, of course, unless existing laws granting unions special privileges prevent them from doing so, but that would just be grounds for finally eliminating all the special privileges and coercive powers that unions currently enjoy.

The bill is completely silly. As I mentioned in another thread, these Republicans are wimps. Instead of standing up to the unions, and refusing to negotiate with them at all, they are violating the rights of the union workers to ACT as a union, and then still negotiating with them. It's a bully tactic that only a wimpy government would use.

They should be strong conservatives, the Republicans control the governorship and the congress. Why not just DO AWAY with the government jobs ALL TOGETHER like REAL conservatives would do?

Here is the bill if anybody wants to read it:

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/JR1SB-11.pdf

 

[ItsTime]

Their rights are being violated, and they are fighting for their rights.

The government is trying to make it so that they don't have the right to act as a union.

They DO have that right. And the government has the right to fire them (but won't act on THAT right - they'd rather just legislate away the rights of the workers)

I support the union in this case, and I think all of us here should support them. We should be there with them.

We must stand up for the rights of even those we despise the most.

From the bill:



Maybe we should rename this "Eliminate the rights" of people forums.

They do not have the right to negotiate taking my rights and property away IN ANY FORM. That is where your whole argument falls apart.

 

[Anti Federalist]

prompting Gov. Scott Walker to consider bringing out the National Guard

This issue is going to end up being another one of those "separating the wheat from the chaff" issues.

As repugnant as the ideas these people are protesting in favor of, is anybody here really going to support the idea of armed state enforcers marching in and shooting people for exercising their right to peaceably assemble and protest government for redress of grievances?

 

[puppetmaster]

Their rights are being violated, and they are fighting for their rights.

The government is trying to make it so that they don't have the right to act as a union.

They DO have that right. And the government has the right to fire them (but won't act on THAT right - they'd rather just legislate away the rights of the workers)

I support the union in this case, and I think all of us here should support them. We should be there with them.

We must stand up for the rights of even those we despise the most.

From the bill:



Maybe we should rename this "Eliminate the rights" of people forums.

these are State jobs right...not private sector.....does the law stop private sector unions?

 

[RonPaulCult]

They do not have the right to negotiate taking my rights and property away IN ANY FORM. That is where your whole argument falls apart.

Only the government steals from you. These workers are not THE government, they just work FOR the government. That they are paid with stolen money doesn't mean they don't have the right to negotiate their wage, as non-slaves and like everybody else. That's where your argument falls apart, although I respect your viewpoint very much.

 

[amadeus8888]

First of all, they aren't "peaceably assembling" and second of all, tax leeches have no right to demand more of our property at the barrel of the government's gun.
As was mentioned before, in a free society, each (non-coercive) employer would decide for himself if he wanted to negotiate with a union. In the case of the coercive sector, that logic doesn't work - market forces are not at play here because the thieves just steal the money.
I say arrest the vandals and others who are destroying property, and fire all these people who aren't satisfied with the amount of stolen loot they are getting!
Ah! Labor unions make me so mad! Even more so in the leech sector!

 

[RonPaulCult]

First of all, they aren't "peaceably assembling" and second of all, tax leeches have no right to demand more of our property at the barrel of the government's gun.
As was mentioned before, in a free society, each (non-coercive) employer would decide for himself if he wanted to negotiate with a union. In the case of the coercive sector, that logic doesn't work - market forces are not at play here because the thieves just steal the money.
I say arrest the vandals and others who are destroying property, and fire all these people who aren't satisfied with the amount of stolen loot they are getting!
Ah! Labor unions make me so mad! Even more so in the leech sector!

Isn't the REAL solution to not have these jobs be public sector jobs any longer?

And since I'm sure we can ALL agree that is the solution - WHY AREN'T THE REPUBLICANS IN WI DOING THAT?

Because they are weak? Because they aren't truly conservatives? Your guess is as good as mine

 

[tangent4ronpaul]

It's spread to other states - OH and 2 others.

-t

 

[Mini-Me]

This issue is going to end up being another one of those "separating the wheat from the chaff" issues.

As repugnant as the ideas these people are protesting in favor of, is anybody here really going to support the idea of armed state enforcers marching in and shooting people for exercising their right to peaceably assemble and protest government for redress of grievances?

No. From the sound of it though, there's a lot of vandalism and property destruction going on. It could be agent provocateurs, or it could be violent idiots being violent idiots. I definitely agree that the national guard is a bad idea (although it may actually be preferable to the riot police we usually see), and it could make the protestors martyrs (also a bad idea). At the same time, I wonder what the alternatives would be in the event things get really bad.. :-/

 

[Michael Landon]

these are State jobs right...not private sector.....does the law stop private sector unions?

Not yet, but this is probably the first domino to fall.

This reminds me of:
1920's - "hey, we're not going to take away your right to bear arms, we just don't think civilians should own assault weapons." Full-Auto Tommy-Guns, outlawed.
1960's - "hey, we're not going to take away your right to bear arms, we just don't think civilians should own assault weapons." Full-Auto anything, outlawed.
1990's - "hey, we're not going to take away your right to bear arms, we just don't think civilians should own assault weapons." Semi-Autos with large clips, outlawed.
2010's - "hey, we're not going to take away your right to hunt, we just don't think civilians should own handguns." Attack on handguns and Semi-Autos with large clips begin again.
Future - "hey, we're not going to take away your right to hunt, we just don't think civilians should own anything that shoots or holds more than one shot of .22 caliber ammo."

I find it great that the people are rallying against a corrupt government.

- ML

 

[ssantoro]

They're.

The protestors are a mixed bag. Some have legit concerns.

The only legit concern at this time in America is fiscal responsibility.

 

[FrankRep]

Wisconsin Gov. Fires Back at Obama: He Should Focus on Balancing His Own Budget

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/wis...-he-should-focus-on-balancing-his-own-budget/

 

[Mini-Me]

The only legit concern at this time in America is fiscal responsibility.

...along with ending wars and the police state simply because they're evil (but I guess that falls under fiscal responsibility too ).

 

[Ninja Homer]

Their rights are being violated, and they are fighting for their rights.

The government is trying to make it so that they don't have the right to act as a union.

They DO have that right. And the government has the right to fire them (but won't act on THAT right - they'd rather just legislate away the rights of the workers)

I support the union in this case, and I think all of us here should support them. We should be there with them.

We must stand up for the rights of even those we despise the most.

From the bill:



Maybe we should rename this "Eliminate the rights" of people forums.

They aren't trying to eliminate any rights, they are trying to remove special privileges that state employees are granted by Wisconsin law. State workers can still unionize if they choose to.

What do you call it when a union is protected by law, state workers are required to be a part of the union, and the state is required by law to grant them special privileges that the private sector doesn't get? Is it still called a union, or is it a racket?

 

[archangel689]

A call of the house was made... If those who hold vote cannot be found to obtain quorum, then their seats should be declared vacant and elections should take place for those vacant seats.