Wisconsin, Union, rights?
Posted: Fri Feb 18, 2011 7:23 pm
I think its about to start talking about the union busting whats going on in Wisconsin. The left claims rights rights rights, the right claims budget. I don't want to get into the debate on the dishonesty of calling it a budget issue when its clearly aimed at taking union power. I'll concede that argument. I would rather like to look at the issue of "rights".
I will use the word union to mean speicifcally public unions. PL to refer to proposed law.
Lets look at the elements of the PL things
1) Right to form a union
Apparently it is not a right for public unions to organize. It can be granted, but its not a federally mandated right (private unions have the right to organize under federal law). Best argument I've heard about this is... unions are representing their interests against the interests of tax payers. In a similar fashion you can't award punitive damages against government... because you're punishing all tax payers.
Also, I do not believe federal workers can organize (although I'm not sure what that means in terms of the TSA because I thought they were recently given the right to organize and negotiate in specific areas including salary)
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld ... 4043.story
Currently, only 12 states deny public workers the right to collective bargaining, and more workers are unionized in government than in the private sector.
...
In most states, including California, state legislation is what permits government workers to bargain collectively for pay raises. It takes a simple change in the law to remove much of labor unions' clout. (Private-sector workers and federal employees are governed by federal law, and states cannot deny them the right to collective bargaining.)
2) What do unions have a right to negotiate for
--Well apparently nothing (see above)... unless the legislature specifically grants them the right...
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpa ... _unio.html
Public employees, he asserts, "do not have a fundamental right, either moral or legal, to bargain collectively -- for the very good reason that they work, ostensibly at least, for the people, not for profit-making private corporations." Because it's up to the individual states to grant or deny those rights to their public employees
--Cited early in defense was unions ability to negotiate the color of the teacher's lounge as well as the termination and complaint process. Being able to negotiate the color of the walls is just ... retarded. Who wouldn't want a say in the termination and complaint process, but look at how this plays out in NY (teachers sit in the job bank for 9+ months drawing full salarly?) universal complaints that its impossible to fire a tenured teacher?
http://www.twincities.com/wisconsin/ci_ ... ck_check=1
Walker wants to remove all collective-bargaining rights, except for salary, for roughly 175,000 public employees starting July 1. Any requests for a salary increase higher than the consumer price index would have to be approved by referendum.
His administration also notified unions that current contracts would be canceled effective March 13, a necessary step before his proposed changes could take effect.
3) what power do unions have
--PL prevents unions from forcing members to pay dues
--PL requires an annual vote on whether to be represented by the union
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpa ... _unio.html
Lane is particularly enamored of the governor's proposal to require all public sector unions to have an annual vote of their members on whether they want union representation at all.
--These are obviously the real reason for the protests. First of all, a yearly vote to remain unionized scares the crap out of them... as it should... because it only takes 1 year to produce long term results (note Obamacare).
--Second, if you make paying dues voluntary... the union political machine shuts down. less money to buy politicians, less money to bus in protestors, less money to cover the costs of strikes. Additionally, union bosses have to find a new job or take a huge pay cut (I believe they make 150k+, some in NY I believe make 300k+)... lastly, those expensive lawyers they pay to draw negotiations out for months and years are much more difficult to afford.
=======
#1, I think they should be free to organize... thats free association as far as I'm concerned.
#2, I think they should have a right to negotiate for anything they want. I don't like the state having the right to limit their raises based on CPI... I mean it works so well with medicare and the "doc fix" or the Alternate Mean Tax. are they stupid? Maybe give it a higher standard, like being approved by the legislature or the governor, but I don't think it needs to go to a public vote. I mean why do we elect officials and have administration if we have to vote on everything.
That being said, I do think that the state should be able to negotiate with individual teachers directly and reach agreements with them directly. Unions should not be able to lockout teachers from working or negotiating for themselves. I realize this has the practical effect of making union negotation pointless since you won't be able to galvanize the workforce except under ... extreme unfair circumstances... Sounds good to me.
#3, I think its an outrage that in some cases/states you MUST join the union, in others you don't have to join, but you MUST pay "dues" (your fair share of the costs of negotating that benefit and other benefits you derive from the Union's activities on behalf of positions they represent). How is taking away the unions ability to FORCE you to pay dues, taking away your rights? You can still donate.
Annual vote on continuing to be represented by a union... Sounds a bit unfair, forming a union is pretty difficult from what I understand and they do everything they can to prevent the union from forming and the laws are tight... so to require a yearly vote to continue its existence... seems incredibly one sided. If they are going to vote every year on whether to reject union representation... I assume they should have the right every year to vote on whether to accept union representation. That would at least be somewhat "fair".
I will use the word union to mean speicifcally public unions. PL to refer to proposed law.
Lets look at the elements of the PL things
1) Right to form a union
Apparently it is not a right for public unions to organize. It can be granted, but its not a federally mandated right (private unions have the right to organize under federal law). Best argument I've heard about this is... unions are representing their interests against the interests of tax payers. In a similar fashion you can't award punitive damages against government... because you're punishing all tax payers.
Also, I do not believe federal workers can organize (although I'm not sure what that means in terms of the TSA because I thought they were recently given the right to organize and negotiate in specific areas including salary)
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld ... 4043.story
Currently, only 12 states deny public workers the right to collective bargaining, and more workers are unionized in government than in the private sector.
...
In most states, including California, state legislation is what permits government workers to bargain collectively for pay raises. It takes a simple change in the law to remove much of labor unions' clout. (Private-sector workers and federal employees are governed by federal law, and states cannot deny them the right to collective bargaining.)
2) What do unions have a right to negotiate for
--Well apparently nothing (see above)... unless the legislature specifically grants them the right...
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpa ... _unio.html
Public employees, he asserts, "do not have a fundamental right, either moral or legal, to bargain collectively -- for the very good reason that they work, ostensibly at least, for the people, not for profit-making private corporations." Because it's up to the individual states to grant or deny those rights to their public employees
--Cited early in defense was unions ability to negotiate the color of the teacher's lounge as well as the termination and complaint process. Being able to negotiate the color of the walls is just ... retarded. Who wouldn't want a say in the termination and complaint process, but look at how this plays out in NY (teachers sit in the job bank for 9+ months drawing full salarly?) universal complaints that its impossible to fire a tenured teacher?
http://www.twincities.com/wisconsin/ci_ ... ck_check=1
Walker wants to remove all collective-bargaining rights, except for salary, for roughly 175,000 public employees starting July 1. Any requests for a salary increase higher than the consumer price index would have to be approved by referendum.
His administration also notified unions that current contracts would be canceled effective March 13, a necessary step before his proposed changes could take effect.
3) what power do unions have
--PL prevents unions from forcing members to pay dues
--PL requires an annual vote on whether to be represented by the union
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpa ... _unio.html
Lane is particularly enamored of the governor's proposal to require all public sector unions to have an annual vote of their members on whether they want union representation at all.
--These are obviously the real reason for the protests. First of all, a yearly vote to remain unionized scares the crap out of them... as it should... because it only takes 1 year to produce long term results (note Obamacare).
--Second, if you make paying dues voluntary... the union political machine shuts down. less money to buy politicians, less money to bus in protestors, less money to cover the costs of strikes. Additionally, union bosses have to find a new job or take a huge pay cut (I believe they make 150k+, some in NY I believe make 300k+)... lastly, those expensive lawyers they pay to draw negotiations out for months and years are much more difficult to afford.
=======
#1, I think they should be free to organize... thats free association as far as I'm concerned.
#2, I think they should have a right to negotiate for anything they want. I don't like the state having the right to limit their raises based on CPI... I mean it works so well with medicare and the "doc fix" or the Alternate Mean Tax. are they stupid? Maybe give it a higher standard, like being approved by the legislature or the governor, but I don't think it needs to go to a public vote. I mean why do we elect officials and have administration if we have to vote on everything.
That being said, I do think that the state should be able to negotiate with individual teachers directly and reach agreements with them directly. Unions should not be able to lockout teachers from working or negotiating for themselves. I realize this has the practical effect of making union negotation pointless since you won't be able to galvanize the workforce except under ... extreme unfair circumstances... Sounds good to me.
#3, I think its an outrage that in some cases/states you MUST join the union, in others you don't have to join, but you MUST pay "dues" (your fair share of the costs of negotating that benefit and other benefits you derive from the Union's activities on behalf of positions they represent). How is taking away the unions ability to FORCE you to pay dues, taking away your rights? You can still donate.
Annual vote on continuing to be represented by a union... Sounds a bit unfair, forming a union is pretty difficult from what I understand and they do everything they can to prevent the union from forming and the laws are tight... so to require a yearly vote to continue its existence... seems incredibly one sided. If they are going to vote every year on whether to reject union representation... I assume they should have the right every year to vote on whether to accept union representation. That would at least be somewhat "fair".