Wisconsin Union Law Upheld

This is great news



On a different note, is anyone getting tired of being called a worker?

Why do people on the left use that term so much?
 
This decision, and the one it overturns, isn't actually about the law itself is it? Was not the challenge based on the procedure used to pass the law, rather than the actual content of the law? If so, there are still opportunities to challenge the content of the law.

In the meantime, it's a victory for the taxpaying citizens of the mediocre State of Wisconsin.
 
WildCat said:
Are there even white collar unions outside of government?
Click to expand...

Depends on what you call "white collar".

All GS workers are "white collar", and almost all GS workers are represented by a bargaining unit except for supervisors and those whose job would create a conflict of interest if they were in the bargaining unit.

There are many jobs in the private sector that are identical to goverment jobs that are classified as "white collar" that are also represented by bargaining units, so the answer is probably yes.
 
sarge said:
This decision, and the one it overturns, isn't actually about the law itself is it? Was not the challenge based on the procedure used to pass the law, rather than the actual content of the law? If so, there are still opportunities to challenge the content of the law.

In the meantime, it's a victory for the taxpaying citizens of the mediocre State of Wisconsin.
Click to expand...

Except for the taxpaying union workers (ie. all of the union workers), who have just seen their overall wealth reduced. I wonder if the richest 10% are worrying about their benefits and pensions right now.
 
stokes234 said:
Except for the taxpaying union workers (ie. all of the union workers), who have just seen their overall wealth reduced. I wonder if the richest 10% are worrying about their benefits and pensions right now.
Click to expand...

Since that includes those making $100K and above, I can say with absolute personal certainty, that the answer is YES !!!
 
The darling of the left, FDR, says..

""All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management...Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=15445#ixzz1PM0nm6Gj
 
Just thinking said:
Since that includes those making $100K and above, I can say with absolute personal certainty, that the answer is YES !!!
Click to expand...

Sure they are. They're shaking in their boots.

easycruise said:
The darling of the left, FDR, says..

""All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management...Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=15445#ixzz1PM0nm6Gj
Click to expand...

I disagree with FDR and don't know how he got given the title of "darling of the left" while opposing public sector trade unions. But it's worth keeping in mind that "left-wing" in america often means "doesn't believe friedman was 100% right about everything ever", rather than left-wing by any other countries' standards.
 
stokes234 said:
I disagree with FDR and don't know how he got given the title of "darling of the left" while opposing public sector trade unions.
Click to expand...
Because FDR saw the inherent lopsidedness of CB negotiations with public employee unions. When you have the power to elect your boss the boss doesn't have much negotiating power. It's not like government workers ever worked in sweatshop conditions.

Unchecked, the US turns into Greece. Greek public employee unions are actually rioting to force the country into defaulting on loans and into bankruptcy.

Illinois is coming close to becoming Greece with the weight of unfunded pension obligations.
 
WildCat said:
Because FDR saw the inherent lopsidedness of CB negotiations with public employee unions. When you have the power to elect your boss the boss doesn't have much negotiating power. It's not like government workers ever worked in sweatshop conditions.

Unchecked, the US turns into Greece. Greek public employee unions are actually rioting to force the country into defaulting on loans and into bankruptcy.

Illinois is coming close to becoming Greece with the weight of unfunded pension obligations.
Click to expand...

I don't know about "close to becoming greece". Americans don't know how to have a good riot, and there's too many guns lying around anyway. But if you're struggling to pay the pensions that workers have been promised, maybe you should repeal the tax cuts you gave to the rich?
 
sarge said:
This decision, and the one it overturns, isn't actually about the law itself is it? Was not the challenge based on the procedure used to pass the law, rather than the actual content of the law? If so, there are still opportunities to challenge the content of the law.

In the meantime, it's a victory for the taxpaying citizens of the mediocre State of Wisconsin.
Click to expand...

Yes, it was the procedure. I think the content was never in question, at least from a legal perspective.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom