Wisconsin Takes A Stand For Fiscal Sanity

[Kuciwalker]

If we substitute "NHS employee's" for "doctor's" in my post, does it change the answer?

[molly bloom]

I think you are being intellectually dishonest Molly.

You're free to think what you like. Unfortunately the intellectual dishonesty so far has been on your side- you've repeatedly made a false distinction between 'taxpayers' and trade union members, Democrat voters and Democrat politicians. This is depsite having had this false dichotomy pointed out to you more than once...

The same goes for 'voters' , unless you think only the votes cast for candidates who do not support the right of a trade union to bargain collectively are valid.

I like how you still haven't furnished any proof for your assertion that the Wisconsin Democrats are controlled by the unions. More intellectual dishonesty on your part, or did you merley expect everyone to accept this on trust ?

[molly bloom]

As I pointed out on page 1 or 2:
The purpose of a union is to prevent exploitation of workers by employers.

What I find astonishing about this post is its combination of arrogance and ignorance. I love how you assume that your definition of a trade union is the correct one- this despite the fact that people have been forming trade unions and combinations and friendly societies since the 18th Century, and thus have had the temerity not to wait for you to exist before giving them a raison d'etre.
Well how dare they ?

Yes, unions represent people in the workplace- but they also campaign on a host of other issues too- and they have done since their inception. Issues like extension of the franchise, women's rights, education for workers, moral welfare, anti-slavery campaigns and so on.

In the case of public sector workers, we are the employer.

Hoho. Is this the Royal or the Papal 'We' you're using ?

Therefore, if our policy goal is to not exploit them, all we have to do is not exploit them.

I can't help thinking this is some kind of attempt at irony on your part, or an April Fool's Day joke.

Yes, and all that's necessary for Muslims and Jews to get along in the Middle East is for them to stop hating each other. Similarly, all that's required for men and women to be treated equally is for discrimination on the grounds of gender to be abolished.

This presumably is your idea of advanced political thinking:

I'd like to build the world a home
And furnish it with love
Grow apple trees and honey bees
And snow-white turtle doves

I'd like to teach the world to sing
In perfect harmony
I'd like to hold it in my arms
And keep it company

I'd like to see the world for once
All standing hand in hand
And hear them echo through the hills
For peace throughout the land

(That's the song I hear)
I'd like to teach the world to sing
(Let the world sing today)
In perfect harmony

If your post is a spoof, perhaps you might work on some others, and try sending them to 'The Onion' or 'The Daily Show'.

A union is completely unnecessary.

Yes, because local government employers only do what's right and good for their workers, and never obey the dictates of party thinking...

He also attempted to be magnanimous toward the thousands of protesters who had gathered in Madison since he first announced his legislative intentions on Valentine's Day. "I think we've had a civil discussion," he said. "It's been passionate, but it's been civil along the way."

http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...058601,00.html

Clearly we have differing definitions of civility:

With unions calling on members an allies to “fight back” against a “blatant power grab,” tensions are running so high that the governor, who took office in January, is threatening to call out the National Guard in case of industrial action by state, county and municipal employees.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/158522...-public-unions

The only effect of a public sector union is to make it harder for the voters (through their representatives) to reduce public sector pay, etc

'The voters'- those mysterious beings who are never, according to this line of thought, supporters of unions or supporters of collective bargaining. Surely some voters must exist who are also members of unions and support the right of those unions to bargain collectively ?

the only possible purpose is therefore to subvert the will of the voters.

This presumes that we follow your limited definitions. Luckily, we don't have to.

Sometimes, subverting the will of the voters is a good thing

Ah. So not doing what voters want is good, if you agree with it. I think we get the message...

But you have to be honest about it. molly bloom, the only rational basis for supporting public sector unions in Wisconsin is to prevent the majority of voters there from freely choosing how to allocate their tax dollars.

My 'honesty' doesn't enter into it. The Governor of Wisconsin's does. As far as I'm able to find out, didn't even mention taking collective bargaining rights away from public sector unions in his electoral campaign.

How, therefore, could the 'majority' of voters in Wisconsin possibly have supported this measure, when it wasn't even presented to them publicly, nor was it the subject of a state-wide referendum ?

[molly bloom]

Personally, I went straight to the KrazyHorse-esque step of pointing out that he's another leftist tool.

Gosh, unoriginal and puerile. I'd say pick on someone your own size, but can there be many people in short trousers browsing this site ?

[molly bloom]

You read wrong, or at least I think you're missing some details. On an abstract level, voters seem opposed to "eliminating unions" (most voters don't really understand unions)

What details are missing here ? Oh yes, the number of voters who don't 'really understand unions' . Please supply some figures to back up the more ludicrous of your claims, otherwise people may not take you seriously.

but when you ask them if they think teachers should be able to unilaterally set their own pay and benefits a majority have said no,

On the other hand, don't bother, because it's fairly obvious you're just pulling these 'facts' out of your arse (metaphorically).

and if you ask them whether they think the current pay and benefits are too high a majority has said yes.

And another arsefact!

Or is it from Fox News, or the desk of Rush Limbaugh, or some other trustworthy font of information ?

[DinoDoc]

Speaking of voters, does anyone know the results of the State Supreme Court election in Wisconsin?

[molly bloom]

What do you base this on?

A comparison with the facts he pulls out of rectal space, apparently.

[molly bloom]

Oh, this:

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

'Subverting the future will of voters' ? Have you perfected time travel, or are you offering yourself up as some kind of infallible oracle ?

Even if a majority of voters supported it now, it would still be antidemocratic.

But don't forget- you assured us:

Sometimes, subverting the will of the voters is a good thing

Of course, only if Tribune Kuciwalker agrees with it.

[C0ckney]

the major problem with kuci's argument there, was, in fact pointed out by aeson later on. in that if you want to make the argument that something is 'subverting the will of future voters' (even if the present ones support it), then all laws are anti-democratic because they make it harder to change things in the future. it's a nonsense argument.

the will of the voters in this case is for unions and for those unions to have collective bargaining rights. we know this because pollsters have directly asked people about the issue.

[molly bloom]

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!

Again, only if we accept your limited and biased definition of what a union is, and what it is for. Odd how trade union members and creators have managed to pre-empt you on that. Guess your time machine can only take you into the future, to unerringly discern the will of future voters....

[Egbert]

Speaking of voters, does anyone know the results of the State Supreme Court election in Wisconsin?

So far, too close to call with a recount likely.

http://wisconsinvote.org/

[molly bloom]

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.

I love how you speak for majority of us. I missed out on when you were voted Dear Leader and Most Beloved Employer though.

[molly bloom]

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?

Actually you and Wezil have done a great snowjob on these mysterious 'voters' and their intentions.Of course we have discovered that you alone know their future will....

[molly bloom]

Moreover, I've already given an example of where the voters should be proscribed from enacting certain policies:

Yeah, the ones you agree with.

Because unions have the secondary purpose of funneling money to the opposition candidates.

Really ? Could you show me the articles of association for a union where it says this ? I'm glad to see that you now think unions are more than single issue entities, by the way.

Because an anti-labor administration has been elected.

Where in the Governor's manifesto did it set this out ?

He seems to think he's not a union-buster:

Wallace: So, let’s take a look at what is in your plan because beyond making public workers pay more for benefits, here’s what your plan would do. It would allow unions to negotiate only over wages, not benefits or work rules. The state would no longer collect union dues and unions would have to win an election every year to keep representing workers.

Isn’t that union-busting?

WALKER: No, absolutely not. Our belief is that we’re going to ask more for health care and more for pension contribution which is, by the way, very realistic.

http://http://www.foxnews.com/on-air...-spending-figh

It must be true if it's on Fox News..

[Kuciwalker]

the major problem with kuci's argument there, was, in fact pointed out by aeson later on. in that if you want to make the argument that something is 'subverting the will of future voters' (even if the present ones support it), then all laws are anti-democratic because they make it harder to change things in the future. it's a nonsense argument.

And I refuted that, multiple times. Creating a union that has the ability to extort the state by striking is quite a bit different from simple status quo bias.