Why aren't we on the side of the union protesters?

[Tal]

Can the public unions in Wisconsin force non-union members who get employed by the government in Wisconsin to join their union? do they have any legal power to do so or can a new government employee tell them to buzz off without any serious consequences?

 

[matt0611]

Can the public unions in Wisconsin force non-union members who get employed by the government in Wisconsin to join their union? do they have any legal power to do so or can a new government employee tell them to buzz off without any serious consequences?

As far as I know, they HAVE to join the union and pay dues to the union as a condition of employment.

 

[LinusVanPelt]

See, this is the part that's so bizarre to me. Teachers aren't fat cats, getting paid for doing nothing. They're teachers. They teach our children, and look at how much respect they're getting for that.

Basically what you guys are saying is, if you work for the government, you should not be allowed to petition your government with a list of grievances. This isn't libertarian. This is inherently statist. Gov. Walker is using our rhetoric for statist purposes, and we should be against that

I don't want to turn this into an ad hominem but I'm curious to know if you have children in public school.

Nobody is accusing teachers of being "fat cats" anymore than one would accuse doctors or soldiers or public defenders etc of being "fat cats."

The point is that these people sign up--voluntarily--for a profession ("not just a job") that involves sacrifice in order to (ostensibly) serve The People, and provide a public service that, when done correctly, is virtually priceless.

Is that job being done correctly in public schools? Have you seen the test scores? Talked to the students? I have, at length.

Now if doctors or (war politics aside) soldiers or other "public servants" began striking and rioting and making demands on the general public over things like contributing an extra 4% towards their own retirement pension, how would that strike you? Would you feel confident in a doctor who had no interest in providing, who vehemently refused to provide, any medical care if he or she was asked to contribute towards his own retirement or sacrifice a fraction of his perquisites?

These teachers have stopped teaching to go "strike," a luxury that would get 85% of tax-paying private-sector employees fired. And not only that, they have persuaded students to spend time when they should be learning, oh, I don't know, reading, math and science to join in some political tantrum and carry around signs comparing the governor of Wisconsin to Adolph Hitler. It's sick and absurd.

Teachers have a tough job. But you know what? Time are tough. Things are tough all over right now. They are lucky to have jobs, let alone full-time jobs with salaries and benefits, unlike many of the parents who have no educational choices (thanks to Democratic politicians) except sending their kids to public schools.

Not a single person on this board or who supports Ron Paul suported the Wall Street bailouts. That is a separate issue.

And you know what else? I guarantee you that 90% of those striking public "workers" voted for Barack Obama, who did vote to bail out Wall Street in 2008. And they will vote to re-elect him in '12. They are acting ignorant, selfish, and spoiled, and seem determined to pass on their mentality of crass, petty self-interest to the youth whose education has been entrusted to them.

 

[osan]

I understand we're supposed to be against public schools in principle, but punishing teachers and other public workers seems like the wrong move to make.

How is preventing teachers, via their unions, from exercising special powers that are inherently anti-competitive, not to mention in most cases wholly loco, punishing them? It is like saying stopping a child molester from being able to bugger you 4 year old son is punishing them - that it is somehow immoral. Yeah... HELLO.

I feel like we, and the teocons for that matter, should be on their side here.

Feel any way you like. That you are dead wrong... well, that is another issue, but it takes nothing from me, so have at it. Get back to us when you return to your senses.

There are so many other places we can save money without screwing over teachers.

They are not getting screwed by a very long shot. They are being introduced to this thing called "reality". Sometimes the introduction feels like punishment, but is in fact nothing or the sort.

I mean, eliminating collective bargaining rights from a private organization is inherently a big government action.

Since when is government a private organization? Because the context in which the unions operate in this case is governmental, referring to them as "private" reflects either a fundamental ignorance of the situation or something of the disingenuous.

Unions are shit. They are shit because the ALWAYS degenerate into the same rotten things - just as does unaccountable government. And yes, unions are indeed unaccountable to the memberships. I have watched them in action for far too many decades to see anything otherwise.

Teachers should be free to form unions. Schools should be free to fire teachers without cause. THAT is part and parcel of freedom, but that isn't what most people want. They want their pretty slavery - all the desired advantages without having to pay the piper for the dancing. Typical looter mentality - getting something for nothing. It is pure bullshit.

That "law" (arbitrary, horse shit, mal-principled law) protects them from being fired is the real problem. Crap teachers need to go. If a righteous teacher is canned, well that's tough shit just as is the case for any other job. If you as a teacher get the heave-ho and feel it was unjust, take the school to court and see what a jury says. You may win... or not. Life is risk. Don't want risk? Don't play. It is as simple as that. That people have come to believe that they are entitled to anything at the expense of others is prima facie proof of just how psychologically unsound they are.

When I became a NYC teacher, I was told I had no choice but to pay union dues. I could decline membership if I chose, but that $30/month was coming out of my check regardless whether I agreed. I was robbed by UFT Local 2 with the aid of the city government. As far as I am concerned, they owe me that money with interest.

Your POV seems in serious need of revision, unless you simply failed to express your opinion adequately.

 

[osan]

The current line parroted on Faux News is that we can't place a cap on Wall Street paychecks because that would be unfair. But as long as Wall Street gets government money, we should be calling them out on their hypocrisy. If they want to distort what libertarianism means, let's not make their jobs easier.

Ah, now here you finally get something right.

 

[osan]

See, this is the part that's so bizarre to me. Teachers aren't fat cats, getting paid for doing nothing. They're teachers. They teach our children, and look at how much respect they're getting for that.

They teach our children shit. Some of the training is quite good, but the social engineering aspect of their jobs is blatant evil. that part is not always their fault - they must inculcate the lies or find themselves in hot water. But many teachers do so with stern hard-ons. Not all teachers are good, not all bad, but every last world of educational law and the requirements they mandate are the purest evil imaginable.

Basically what you guys are saying is, if you work for the government, you should not be allowed to petition your government with a list of grievances. This isn't libertarian. This is inherently statist. Gov. Walker is using our rhetoric for statist purposes, and we should be against that.[/QUOTE]

 

[osan]

The pendulum must swing back though, in order to return to a level of balance. I'm not advocating the killing of unions. They provide a necessary service...

And that would be?

 

[osan]

Walker is trying to avert job layoffs, which is why he attempted to circumvent the CBA protocol. He should have simply carried on with business as usual and let nature take it's course. Districts in turn would have then terminated teachers.

No, the municipalities would have jacked the property taxes to cover the shortfall. This is historic boilerplate since at least the 1970s.

 

[LinusVanPelt]

I understand we're supposed to be against public schools in principle

Yeah, actually nobody here is "supposed to be" for or against anything. We're not a public union here, we won't drag you from class and force you to march on our behalf

Most of us "libertarian/conservatives" or whatever have come to the conclusion that the system is broken. Or, if you prefer, that the system functions too well for what it has been re-designed to do: Serve and enrich a small minority at the labor and expense of the majority.

Most of us have decided, after researching and thinking critically about the separate issues, that the systemic problems are directly traceable to inculcated public reliance on unelected bureaucratic agents who wield the full force and power of government violence to enforce their collective will: the IRS, the DEA, the SEC, the CIA, and yes, even more "benign" agencies like the DOE or the (truly absurd) NEA.

As for the particular issue at hand: I don't want to "punish" teachers. I myself worked for the New York public school system in Harlem, supervising an after-school program and working directly with kids age 8-11. I know how difficult it is. It was one of the toughest, and most rewarding, jobs I've ever had.

I want the system to serve the kids, not the adults who have control of the system. I want poor kids to have the educational opportunities that Democratic and Republican politicians have for their children, i.e. private schools, like where Obama's kids go.

Have you seent he documentary Waiting for Superman?

 

[osan]

I don't think the government has the right to infringe the free association of workers. That's my response. :/

FTW, this sizing up as another uber-troll.

Stop feeding.

 

[angelatc]

I don't think the government has the right to infringe the free association of workers. That's my response. :/

Nobody is saying they can't associate with each other. This bill doesn't take away their right to be a union. The governor is saying that they can't keep purchasing Democrats to vote themselves pay raises that exceed COLA. If they want to associate and take their request for bigger financial gain to the same public that has to pay it, they're perfectly able to do that.

 

[jtstellar]

from recent constant outcries from liberals, i have gathered enough insight to figure out how liberal's mind works and see that the notion of their respect for social liberties is simply a myth.

they see the society as a construct for interactions between groups. there are no individuals.. to have rights you must belong to a group. thus one racial group may be entitled to better education relative to their actual academic achievement.

the economy is always a finite pie to be divided.. groups decide among themselves how to divide the pie via "democracy". it's why liberals praise the word democracy so highly and deem it essential. it's the platform with which they dominate small guys and divide loots and share power. interestingly enough, they seldom question how or how fast human's progression in terms of technology comes about, how wealth is created, and how their activities may hamper it all.

the notion that liberals respect social liberties is entirely a myth.. they usually do not legislate into personal behaviors simply because many behaviors are not significant enough to affect collectives. it's basically "you do what you want when it doesn't matter". you do your share in the labor camp, and the rest is your free time.

when your economic activities grow too powerful or when your health affects the health care budget.. when your private activities affect groups, rights will be taken away. it's not that social liberties are somehow respected in any regard in the minds of liberals.. whatever part is still left in their "social liberty", they just haven't gotten around to butcher it yet. when groups grow extensively enough, there won't be any left. there are no "social liberals".. libertarians need to stop crediting unworthy people of unintended deeds.

kinda a messy post.. only slept couple hrs last night

 

[LibForestPaul]

When I became a NYC teacher, I was told I had no choice but to pay union dues. I could decline membership if I chose, but that $30/month was coming out of my check regardless whether I agreed. I was robbed by UFT Local 2 with the aid of the city government. As far as I am concerned, they owe me that money with interest.

Sums pretty much everything up.

 

[Doug8796]

It is up to the states, thats why

 

[Sentient Void]

from recent constant outcries from liberals, i have gathered enough insight to figure out how liberal's mind works and see that the notion of their respect for social liberties is simply a myth.

they see the society as a construct for interactions between groups. there are no individuals.. to have rights you must belong to a group. thus one racial group may be entitled to better education relative to their actual academic achievement.

the economy is always a finite pie to be divided.. groups decide among themselves how to divide the pie via "democracy". it's why liberals praise the word democracy so highly and deem it essential. it's the platform with which they dominate small guys and divide loots and share power. interestingly enough, they seldom question how or how fast human's progression in terms of technology comes about, how wealth is created, and how their activities may hamper it all.

the notion that liberals respect social liberties is entirely a myth.. they usually do not legislate into personal behaviors simply because many behaviors are not significant enough to affect collectives. it's basically "you do what you want when it doesn't matter". you do your share in the labor camp, and the rest is your free time.

when your economic activities grow too powerful or when your health affects the health care budget.. when your private activities affect groups, rights will be taken away. it's not that social liberties are somehow respected in any regard in the minds of liberals.. whatever part is still left in their "social liberty", they just haven't gotten around to butcher it yet. when groups grow extensively enough, there won't be any left. there are no "social liberals".. libertarians need to stop crediting unworthy people of unintended deeds.

kinda a messy post.. only slept couple hrs last night

^^^^^ *this*.

Spot on, bro. Great analysis of the liberal mind. I wholeheartedly agree.

 

[raiha]

This is an interesting discussion. I haven't been following the Wisconsin thing much cos I have been in 'Earthquakes-ville"
I thought it was similar to what went on in France, the people pissed off about wall st being bailed out and the little person being forced to make concessions (yet abloodygain). I don't need anyone to point out France is largely socialist...their ire is understandable. I find it fascinating that your unions force you to join or you do not get the benefits. That is not unionism in my book.
I was brought up in a staunch union family (can't help that) and they were fantastic in the good ole days because the workers WERE being screwed working for peanunts in crap conditions. If unions become corrupt and work alongside government, that is another problem. Our current unions work against government bureaucracy and inefficiency and take them to task.
I do so wish people would not get uppity if someone thinks differently. Change is gradual and sometimes painful as suddently you realize your thinking has changed and suddenly you find you have arguments with your former liberal friends. The cogs have moved irretreivably around. Lambasting and accusing people of trolldom because their thinking does not match yours is not friendly or welcoming and people with good minds need to be cut some slack. This colouring of anyone who leans left (like me) as a commie and a troll is tedious. Gently, Gently catchee monkee.

 

[jtstellar]

^^^^^ *this*.

Spot on, bro. Great analysis of the liberal mind. I wholeheartedly agree.

thanks.. it just dawned on me all of a sudden that libertarians are giving liberals too much credit for civil liberties.

 

[Matt Collins]

 

[ChaosControl]

I am on their side.
There is no "supposed to", there is only what you are. You can be on their side if you want, you don't need approval of this or any other place.
For all the obsession people here make about "collectivist" nonsense, they sure like to act like a herd.

I am not against public schools in principle, I am only against how they are currently setup. But even with them being set up poorly, I still support workers being able to collectively bargain for better terms.

 

[guitarlifter]

My own mother is a teacher, and when she walked up to me to ask me to support collective bargaining and to raise taxes for the building of a new local school, I told her that taxation is wrong, and that her job needs to be privatized and paid for by willing participants, not forcibly through theft. That's how strongly I feel about the situation. Never compromise. Taxation is wrong, no matter how much benefit it brings. Proverbs 16:8 says, "Better a little with righteousness than much gain with injustice." I will never perform a wrong in order to bring about a right, for to do so brings about no righteousness at all.