Wisconsin Takes A Stand For Fiscal Sanity

[Kuciwalker]

As for the point of a union, it seems clear it is to allow the workers in the union to have greater power when negotiating terms of employment.

We're giving them that power with respect to negotiating with us. If the grant of power cannot be revoked it's antidemocratic, and if it can, it's pointless.

[Kuciwalker]

If a voter supports a union, they are essentially saying "in this regard, let my vote for compensation for these workers to be determined by the workers involved or their chosen representatives".

That is, of course, ridiculous. That plays directly into HC's point that the best poll question is "should teachers be able to unilaterally set their own pay?"

[Kuciwalker]

But it would be anti-democratic to deny voters this option, even if you think its in their best interests.

Is anyone here suggesting that the voters should not be allowed to create public sector unions? You are fighting a huge strawman.

There is an obvious and essential difference between saying "X is a bad policy; voters should not vote for that policy" and "X is a bad policy; voters should be proscribed from voting for that policy".

[DaShi]

Is there any circumstance when the will of the voters should be circumscribed, such as voting for allowing only CEOs of fortune 500 companies to write policies or voting republican?

[notyoueither]

It's harder when the union can strike. It's harder when the union gets to collect dues from all employees and use them to fund pro-union candidates.

If what you describe were realistic, what would the point of a union be? If we want to give the employees some amount of pay and benefits, why don't we just do that?

It is not realistic? Elected reps seem to be trying to castrate public sector unions now. Why could that not be done when required in the future?

Unions negotiate with the administration, no? I didn't think legislators are in the room.

A unionist may well reply by asking you why you want public workers to be helpless when faced with an anti-labour administration.

[DaShi]

Plus, I doubt Senator Whatshisname was voted in simply because he is anti-one specific type of labor.

[Kuciwalker]

Is there any circumstance when the will of the voters should be circumscribed, such as voting for allowing only CEOs of fortune 500 companies to write policies or voting republican?

Huh? I can't parse the second clause. Moreover, I've already given an example of where the voters should be proscribed from enacting certain policies: the First Amendment guarantees of free speech, religion, etc. are antidemocratic but also good. I don't think teacher pay is quite on that level...

[Kuciwalker]

It is not realistic? Elected reps seem to be trying to castrate public sector unions now. Why could that not be done when required in the future?

Because unions have the secondary purpose of funneling money to the opposition candidates. A public institution designed to provide money to a specific party is also pretty antidemocratic..

Unions negotiate with the administration, no? I didn't think legislators are in the room.

A unionist may well reply by asking you why you want public workers to be helpless when faced with an anti-labour administration.

Because an anti-labor administration has been elected. I think that if we elect someone who wants to cut teacher pay, then he should be able to cut teacher pay.

There are some cases where I think certain policies are even more important than democracy, such as free speech. Teacher pay is not one of them.

[KrazyHorse]

How the **** are public workers helpless? They can easily go work for another employer.

Meanwhile, with a public sector union all of us are forced to get labor from a single supplier.

[Hauldren Collider]

That's really the root of it--teacher unions exist to protect teachers who are incompetent and cannot find work elsewhere due to aforementioned incompetence.

[notyoueither]

You can fix union enforced political support without removing collective bargaining rights of puplic sector unions.

I'm not convinced on your arguments re democracy and the whim of exectutives. If people get elected to reduce teacher pay, that will happen. If one governor gets elected on a laundry list of issues, that gov should not be able to impose personal whim on public employees.

[notyoueither]

How the **** are public workers helpless? They can easily go work for another employer.

Teachers may not enjoy the luxury of several employers in their market. I'd be surprised if they did.

Meanwhile, with a public sector union all of us are forced to get labor from a single supplier.

Yes, and the system for dealing with them should be fair. There's that word again. As to it's meaning, I'll refer you to a jurist who had occassion to rule on what was porn. I'll know it when I see it.

[Kuciwalker]

You can fix union enforced political support without removing collective bargaining rights of puplic sector unions.

I'm not convinced on your arguments re democracy and the whim of exectutives. If people get elected to reduce teacher pay, that will happen. If one governor gets elected on a laundry list of issues, that gov should not be able to impose personal whim on public employees.

The real problems aren't actually with teacher pay. The truly pernicious effect of teachers' unions on American politics is their steadfast resistance to any reforms that would result in some teachers being fired, somewhere. They really stand for absolute job security for all teachers.

[Kuciwalker]

Teachers may not enjoy the luxury of several employers in their market. I'd be surprised if they did.

Are you kidding?

[notyoueither]

The real problems aren't actually with teacher pay. The truly pernicious effect of teachers' unions on American politics is their steadfast resistance to any reforms that would result in some teachers being fired, somewhere. They really stand for absolute job security for all teachers.

Legislate standards.