Wisconsin State Employees & Budget Cuts

[Woodruff]

Unions were an extremely necessary association when they were first formed. They did do a great deal to make working in the United States a great deal better. The bad thing about Unions today is that they seem to have lost their way. It appears that they have forgotten the core mission of a union is to protect the worker, both short term and long term. Too often they take positions that ignore the long term implications. Often it also seems that they really don't look out for the membership, but for their own ends. Because of this they have fallen out of favour, and are a target, sometimes legitimately.

I agree with you. In the beginning, unions were absolutely necessary. I do believe they are still very relevant and necessary. But you're right in that, far too often, they become an end unto themselves rather than a means for taking care of the workers.

[PLAYER57832]

Unions were an extremely necessary association when they were first formed. They did do a great deal to make working in the United States a great deal better. The bad thing about Unions today is that they seem to have lost their way. It appears that they have forgotten the core mission of a union is to protect the worker, both short term and long term. Too often they take positions that ignore the long term implications. Often it also seems that they really don't look out for the membership, but for their own ends. Because of this they have fallen out of favour, and are a target, sometimes legitimately.

I agree with you. In the beginning, unions were absolutely necessary. I do believe they are still very relevant and necessary. But you're right in that, far too often, they become an end unto themselves rather than a means for taking care of the workers.

Except that is a problem of bad unions, not that there are unions. Reform of unions is one thing, busting them is not.

[Woodruff]

Unions were an extremely necessary association when they were first formed. They did do a great deal to make working in the United States a great deal better. The bad thing about Unions today is that they seem to have lost their way. It appears that they have forgotten the core mission of a union is to protect the worker, both short term and long term. Too often they take positions that ignore the long term implications. Often it also seems that they really don't look out for the membership, but for their own ends. Because of this they have fallen out of favour, and are a target, sometimes legitimately.

I agree with you. In the beginning, unions were absolutely necessary. I do believe they are still very relevant and necessary. But you're right in that, far too often, they become an end unto themselves rather than a means for taking care of the workers.

Except that is a problem of bad unions, not that there are unions. Reform of unions is one thing, busting them is not.

Of course. I don't believe that Augustus Maximus was at all advocating union-busting as a proper methodology.

[Phatscotty]

better the public unions than the state

[Woodruff]

better the unions than the state

So you really don't believe in the free market, then? Because union-busting is not the free market in action.

[john9blue]

"americans hate you, republicans! quit working for the corporate elite and start paying attention the the average joe!"

* republicans get elected into office again by average americans in a democratic election *

"yeah well, americans are stupid anyway"

[HapSmo19]

better the unions than the state

So you really don't believe in the free market, then? Because union-busting is not the free market in action.

......mmmmmmmMMMMMMMbullshit!

[Phatscotty]

I wonder how Wisconsin is going to be sitting in the coming round of rating downgrades from SnP for state debt?

Perhaps Scott Walker is a freakin genius?

[thegreekdog]

better the unions than the state

So you really don't believe in the free market, then? Because union-busting is not the free market in action.

......mmmmmmmMMMMMMMbullshit!

Why is that bullshit? Unions are as much of a free market force as corporations. The problem comes from when the union is a union of state employees; I would argue that a union of state employees has little to do with the free market. I have no problem at all with unions. I have a big problem with government worker unions and the amount of control they have over government. And I have a big problem with non-government worker unions' control of government. But I also have a problem with corporate control of government (which is arguably a much more important issue than union control... at the federal level at least).

[Phatscotty]

better the public unions than the state

So you really don't believe in the free market, then? Because union-busting is not the free market in action.

......mmmmmmmMMMMMMMbullshit!

Why is that bullshit? Unions are as much of a free market force as corporations. The problem comes from when the union is a union of state employees; I would argue that a union of state employees has little to do with the free market. I have no problem at all with unions. I have a big problem with government worker unions and the amount of control they have over government. And I have a big problem with non-government worker unions' control of government. But I also have a problem with corporate control of government (which is arguably a much more important issue than union control... at the federal level at least).

because I wasn't even talking about the free market or union busting? (woodruffs usual)

[Woodruff]

better the public unions than the state

So you really don't believe in the free market, then? Because union-busting is not the free market in action.

......mmmmmmmMMMMMMMbullshit!

Why is that bullshit? Unions are as much of a free market force as corporations. The problem comes from when the union is a union of state employees; I would argue that a union of state employees has little to do with the free market. I have no problem at all with unions. I have a big problem with government worker unions and the amount of control they have over government. And I have a big problem with non-government worker unions' control of government. But I also have a problem with corporate control of government (which is arguably a much more important issue than union control... at the federal level at least).

because I wasn't even talking about the free market or union busting? (woodruffs usual)

In your usual dishonesty, you have now actually changed your quote (look at mine, it's the accurate one to which I was responding). Given that, you don't believe my question was a relevant one? I absolutely believe it was relevant.

[Woodruff]

better the unions than the state

So you really don't believe in the free market, then? Because union-busting is not the free market in action.

......mmmmmmmMMMMMMMbullshit!

It absolutely is not bullshit. How are unions not a part of the free market in action?

[Nobunaga]

better the unions than the state

So you really don't believe in the free market, then? Because union-busting is not the free market in action.

......mmmmmmmMMMMMMMbullshit!

It absolutely is not bullshit. How are unions not a part of the free market in action?

... I believe that they are... until they attach themselves to government. After that they become anathema to it.

... Let them organize and compete on a level playing field (... and get they arses beat).

...

[Woodruff]

better the unions than the state

So you really don't believe in the free market, then? Because union-busting is not the free market in action.

......mmmmmmmMMMMMMMbullshit!

It absolutely is not bullshit. How are unions not a part of the free market in action?

... I believe that they are... until they attach themselves to government. After that they become anathema to it.

... Let them organize and compete on a level playing field (... and get they arses beat).

I'm not one that has a problem with unions at the governmental level, but I can absolutely understand this perspective (I believe thegreekdog shares it). I don't really have a strong disagreement with it, it's really just a personal perspective that makes me disagree rather than something particularly tangible.

[Nobunaga]

... Certainly unions are part of the free market. It is, after all, a FREE market. Let companies unionize if they feel it is to their best advantage, and let them compete in the market place.

... Odds are, if the field is truly level, they will lose, but it is not a given.

...

[john9blue]

... Certainly unions are part of the free market. It is, after all, a FREE market. Let companies unionize if they feel it is to their best advantage, and let them compete in the market place.

... Odds are, if the field is truly level, they will lose, but it is not a given.

...

but... but... unions = bad and free market = good! what is this nonsense

[thegreekdog]

... Certainly unions are part of the free market. It is, after all, a FREE market. Let companies unionize if they feel it is to their best advantage, and let them compete in the market place.

... Odds are, if the field is truly level, they will lose, but it is not a given.

...

Woodruff - I agree with this. I think the government's interference in corporate-employee relations should be limited to allowing employees to unionize (I happen to think any and all employees should unionize - including lawyers, accountants, engineers, and the like) and enforcing union abilities to strike. Apart from that the government needs to stay out. Don't like that airline employees are striking? Stay away. Don't like that Verizon employees are on strike? Leave it alone.

On the other hand, when it comes to state employees, I'm not sure unionization is the proper way to go about things.

[PLAYER57832]

... Certainly unions are part of the free market. It is, after all, a FREE market. Let companies unionize if they feel it is to their best advantage, and let them compete in the market place.

... Odds are, if the field is truly level, they will lose, but it is not a given.

...

Woodruff - I agree with this. I think the government's interference in corporate-employee relations should be limited to allowing employees to unionize (I happen to think any and all employees should unionize - including lawyers, accountants, engineers, and the like) and enforcing union abilities to strike. Apart from that the government needs to stay out. Don't like that airline employees are striking? Stay away. Don't like that Verizon employees are on strike? Leave it alone.

On the other hand, when it comes to state employees, I'm not sure unionization is the proper way to go about things.

I agree, except when it comes to specific safety bits. Sorry, but don't think unionization would work in the military.

I am on the fence regarding air traffic controllers. Doctors and nurses, no.. but that is one of many reasons to make those more public, but with specific rules to protect them. (and therein is a definite contradiction, one I don't really know how to get around).

BUT.. attorney's.. no way! Seriously, in truth attorneys are effectively unionized already in that they can pretty well fight for whatever they want.. and other attorneys are not going to oppose things benefitting them all. That is, it is one group that doesn't need a union because their abilities to get what they want/need are inherent in their profession.

[thegreekdog]

That is, it is one group that doesn't need a union because their abilities to get what they want/need are inherent in their profession.

This is not true at all (and no more true than a steelworker being able to hire an attorney). If I have a conflict with my firm, my choices are limited to either doing what I can do (which is the same as a steelworker as I know as much about employment law as a steel worker) or hiring an employment attorney.

If any group of workers need to unionize, it's big firm attorneys. They are consistently abused and required to work unsafe hours.

[Woodruff]

... Certainly unions are part of the free market. It is, after all, a FREE market. Let companies unionize if they feel it is to their best advantage, and let them compete in the market place.

"Companies" do not unionize. Period. Companies are forced to accept unionization of their employees (or some of their employees), but I've never known a company itself to voluntarily unionize (that I can think of).

[rockfist]

The government should have the ability to enforce some REASONABLE safety laws. The problem is IMO that too often the government is not reasonable.

[PLAYER57832]

That is, it is one group that doesn't need a union because their abilities to get what they want/need are inherent in their profession.

This is not true at all (and no more true than a steelworker being able to hire an attorney). If I have a conflict with my firm, my choices are limited to either doing what I can do (which is the same as a steelworker as I know as much about employment law as a steel worker) or hiring an employment attorney.

If any group of workers need to unionize, it's big firm attorneys. They are consistently abused and required to work unsafe hours.

I know, I was mostly joking. ergo the

[Nobunaga]

... Certainly unions are part of the free market. It is, after all, a FREE market. Let companies unionize if they feel it is to their best advantage, and let them compete in the market place.

"Companies" do not unionize. Period. Companies are forced to accept unionization of their employees (or some of their employees), but I've never known a company itself to voluntarily unionize (that I can think of).

... I understand this, but a company still has a choice. Accept it, or move to another location (I once worked at a company, just summer work, mind, that hauled arse to Mexico when the place voted to unionize).

... Moving cost money, but it saves a lot in the long term. That is what I mean by "choosing to unionize".

...

[Phatscotty]

How are unions not a part of the free market in action?

Companies are forced to accept unionization of their employees

Boom. Free market

[Woodruff]

How are unions not a part of the free market in action?

Companies are forced to accept unionization of their employees

Boom. Free market

You didn't really counter anything nor answer the question. Would you care to try?