From Stark
A new USA Today/Gallup Poll reports that 61 percent of Americans oppose Wisconsin-style measures to strip their state’s public employees of their collective bargaining rights.
The Wisconsin bill has triggered an uproar in the Badger State, with huge throngs of protesters filling the state capitol and teachers shutting down some public schools.
Today’s questions:
Is it too easy to blame public employee unions for state and local budget woes? Didn’t our elected officials approve the pay and benefits in union contracts in negotiations with those unions? Didn’t we elect and re-elect those officials amid warnings from many quarters that state and local budgets might not be sustainable?
It looks like Dave may have been taking lessons in argumentation from pudge.
I’m pretty sure if a person ceases to be a member of a union, that union will indeed stop taking union dues from that person.
How is that a lie or sophistry?
‘nerd,
“I’m pretty sure if a person ceases to be a member of a union, that union will indeed stop taking union dues from that person.
If you’re a teacher in Wisconsin and you quit the union, you lose your job. You know that. They’d better quit taking your money for dues.
Same here in Washington.
Here’s something interesting: http://market-ticker.org/post=180999
Okay, so if a teacher in Wisconsin doesn’t want to be in a teachers union, then that teacher can just go find another job then, I imagine.
Again, easy peasy.
Remember, over 90% of the private sector workforce is non union, and so is about 70% of the public sector workforce. So, its not like a person is required to be a member of a union to be gainfully employed in either sector.
No one can force anyone to join a union if a person really doesn’t want to be a part of one.
Still not seeing the sophistry or the lie…
…can someone illustrate what Mr Onkels is driving at? I’m just not seeing it.
I invite comment!
Is Mr. ‘nerd’s position reasonable or logical?
To continue, is his argument that, as a stockholder, his disagreement with certain actions of corporations in which he invests, a reasonable equivalent to that of a person seeking employment as a teacher who is forced to join a union and pay dues that are applied in a manner with which he disagrees?
Isn’t it far simpler to sell stock than to quit your job and find equivalent employment?
(or people could just read what I wrote myself on this thread and respond to that, rather than respond to Dave’s repackaged version.)
I don’t buy that anyone is forced to make political contributions.
An employee at GE may not appreciate his efforts at profits for the company to be filtered into political ads and PACs but he has no say.
There is also a difference in Union political spending that is targeted at voter education and their access to ballots rather than an individual candidate.
Howard Fineman has a comment:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/25/the-real-political-math-in-wisconsin_n_828429.html
I neglected to include an excerpt:
“Last fall, Republicans took away governorships in four of these public union-heavy states: Ohio (where 46.2 percent of public employees are represented by unions), Michigan (51.7 percent) , Pennsylvania (53.4 percent) and Wisconsin (49.6 percent). It was an impressive Rust Belt sweep.
But the GOP had been hoping for much more in other such states. They thought they had good chances in California (with 59.6 percent unionized public employees), Minnesota (59.2 percent), Oregon (56.9 percent), Illinois (52.6 percent), Connecticut (66.4 percent), Massachusetts (64.4 percent), New Hampshire (50.3 percent) and Rhode Island (66.6 percent).
Republicans lost them all, though many quite narrowly.
The GOP strategic aim is simple enough. If they can abolish union collective-bargaining rights, they can undermine the automatic payment of dues to the public-employee union treasuries. Shrinking those treasuries and reducing the union structure and membership will make it harder for Democrats and their allies to communicate directly with workers.
And under the infamous Citizens United Supreme Court decision, unions — like corporations — are free to spend as much as they want directly advocating for a candidate. That makes the math even more urgent as the 2012 election season approaches.”
I’m sure you’re aware that Federal Government workers who are union members don’t have collective bargaining rights, by the way.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703530504576164822561737348.html
Edit: “…don’t have collective bargaining rights for wages and benefits…”