Wisconsin Takes A Stand For Fiscal Sanity

[Hauldren Collider]

Pay, yes, benefits no--and if you got rid of the seniority system then counties would be able to raise pay for the teachers that aren't worthless. As it is they have to raise pay on the oldest--and usually least competent--teachers first.

was this the subject of a fox news poll?

No. Although, I've heard Fox News polling is supposed to be pretty good.

[C0ckney]

my point was about the ridiculousness of your questions, especially the highlighted one, but it obviously went over your head

[DaShi]

No. Although, I've heard Fox News polling is supposed to be pretty good.

What do you base this on?

[C0ckney]

an example of a better question might be, do you support removing collective barganing rights from public employees such as teachers? when asked this question 6 out 10 americans said no.

in fact several different polls, follow a similar pattern.

of course your position is no surpirse, because only the highest earners support taking away collective bargaining rights

thank goodness for unions, standing up for the will of the people.

[KrazyHorse]

an example of a better question might be, do you support removing collective barganing rights from public employees such as teachers?

Please note that this question has nothing to do with the claim made by kuciwalker.

[C0ckney]

please note that i was responding to HC.

[KrazyHorse]

Yet his point was the root of the discussion. Playing children's games with hc does not address the issue.

[C0ckney]

whatever. if kuci wants to respond, i'm not stopping him...

[Kuciwalker]

I have no idea where your discussion supposedly branched off of something I said.

[Kuciwalker]

Oh, this:

if you measured the will of the voters on this particular issue, what would the outcome be? i read that most people are backing the teachers on this one, so it seems that the unions are not subverting the will of the voters, quite the opposite in fact.

The voters right now may support unions, but that is (as a necessary consequence) support for subverting the will of future voters.

Imagine an amendment to the state's constitution that said "all of the laws in force now are set in stone, forever unchangeable, and this amendment can never be repealed". Even if a majority of voters supported it now, it would still be antidemocratic.

Similarly, an institution that resists a certain class of policy choices by the legislature is antidemocratic, even if the current voters support that institution.

[notyoueither]

The future voters and their representatives could castrate the unions if they so choose.

[Kuciwalker]

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?

[Aeson]

Enacting any law will make it harder in the future to repeal that specific law (or it's effects) and institute something else. Are you saying all laws are anti-democratic?

[Aeson]

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. 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". Whether or not that's their actual intent or they understand all the implications of their action, that's what it is.

This is an important option because no voter can be expected to be well enough informed about the specifics of all public sector jobs and be able to accurately relay their desires to their representatives... supporting a union or unions in general is a short cut where a voter can give a generalized support for increasing worker benefits without having to worry too much about the specifics. Much like the rest of representative democracy.

Of course this is the danger too (representative democracy in general included), since being unaware of the specifics they may be supporting something they don't really want. But it would be anti-democratic to deny voters this option, even if you think its in their best interests.

[Kuciwalker]

Enacting any law will make it harder in the future to repeal that specific law (or it's effects) and institute something else. Are you saying all laws are anti-democratic?

How the hell did you read me as arguing this?

Creating unions creates an institution whose only purpose can be to resist the legislature. It cannot do anything else!