Scott Walker's crusade continues

[Felch]

I'm not shocked that you two are contemptuous of the Constitution. In fact, I long suspected it.

[giblets]

Yes I know your conservative brain thinks liberals hates the Constitution.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

What does "authorized by the Constitution" have to do with it? Do you have any more non sequiturs you would like to bring up? Why should I be expected to pay for a service I benefit from if I don't want to?

I presume the point being is that US Constitution Article I Section 8 specifically authorizes these kinds of revenue collections for the purposes you objected to. Thus the matter is not merely one of "is it right to do so" as that matter has been established already as a matter of law and legal authority.

The larger matter of compelling a purchase you don't wish to make to a third party remains open. I think Roberts (and the majority of Justices) in the Obamacare decision determined commerce cannot be compelled via the commerce clause. Taxed and/or penalized yes but not compelled via the commerce clause. Course this is a matter for the federal level and the 10th reserving the other powers to the states.

[Felch]

You don't hate it, you just disregard it when it doesn't say what you want it to say.

[Felch]

It's pretty childish to pretend like freedom must be absolute. Obviously there are trade offs. We pay taxes and we have police forces that prevent us from murdering people we don't like. These conditions don't mean that we aren't in a free country. A free country is one where, in the balance between social control and liberty, we try to maintain the highest possible degree of liberty. Part of that is saying that people shouldn't be forced to join a union just because the factory where they are employed has one. The social benefit of forcing unionization doesn't balance with the loss of individual liberty.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'm not shocked that you two are contemptuous of the Constitution. In fact, I long suspected it.

This must be some brain tumor among conservatives that equate freedom with the US Constitution and if the US Constitution curtails freedom, then it wasn't really freedom to begin with. It's like some sort of disease.

[giblets]

I presume the point being is that US Constitution Article I Section 8 specifically authorizes these kinds of revenue collections for the purposes you objected to. Thus the matter is not merely one of "is it right to do so" as that matter has been established already as a matter of law and legal authority.

The larger matter of compelling a purchase you don't wish to make to a third party remains open. I think Roberts (and the majority of Justices) in the Obamacare decision determined commerce cannot be compelled via the commerce clause. Taxed and/or penalized yes but not compelled via the commerce clause. Course this is a matter for the federal level and the 10th reserving the other powers to the states.

And? Are you suggesting that a CBA between a union and employer agreeing that only people who pay union dues will be employed is a violation of the United States Constitution? If not what is the relevance?

[Imran Siddiqui]

It's pretty childish to pretend like freedom must be absolute. Obviously there are trade offs. We pay taxes and we have police forces that prevent us from murdering people we don't like. These conditions don't mean that we aren't in a free country. A free country is one where, in the balance between social control and liberty, we try to maintain the highest possible degree of liberty. Part of that is saying that people shouldn't be forced to join a union just because the factory where they are employed has one. The social benefit of forcing unionization doesn't balance with the loss of individual liberty.

On the other hand your argument is "freedom, freedom, freedom" until it hits on something the Constitution says and then you get all, "no that's ok, the Constitution says so".

One can't speak of America being about freedom and then only back that argument for things you want to see be a measure of freedom. I'm also not sure how foreign wars, for example, are necessary for social control. There is a reason that libertarians are against them.

Furthermore aren't you infringing on the business owner's and union's liberty to create a contract that says everyone employed at the place of business will be a union member? What about their contractual liberty? Why are you going against that?

[giblets]

It's pretty childish to pretend like freedom must be absolute. Obviously there are trade offs. We pay taxes and we have police forces that prevent us from murdering people we don't like. These conditions don't mean that we aren't in a free country. A free country is one where, in the balance between social control and liberty, we try to maintain the highest possible degree of liberty. Part of that is saying that people shouldn't be forced to join a union just because the factory where they are employed has one. The social benefit of forcing unionization doesn't balance with the loss of individual liberty.

Except that the benefits of a CBA are greater than the dues and making it more difficult for unions to function does not give workers more freedom. Apparently you pick and choose which liberties you care about depending on what fits your right wing bias.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

And? Are you suggesting that a CBA between a union and employer agreeing that only people who pay union dues will be employed is a violation of the United States Constitution? If not what is the relevance?

Who cares about the union and its CBA? That isn't pertinent. The point is suppose an examle of a worker (or potential new hire) who is part of a union employed and wishes not to be (or a new hire who doesn't wish to join in the first place) is a company employee. He is currently compelled to purchase a service he does not want (Union representation and the accompanying applicatoin of inflexible rules that go with it). A law that specifically allows him a choice to pay or not pay for these services is in keeping with the decision that you can not be compelled to purchase something.

[Felch]

On the other hand your argument is "freedom, freedom, freedom" until it hits on something the Constitution says and then you get all, "no that's ok, the Constitution says so".

One can't speak of America being about freedom and then only back that argument for things you want to see be a measure of freedom. I'm also not sure how foreign wars, for example, are necessary for social control. There is a reason that libertarians are against them.

Furthermore aren't you infringing on the business owner's and union's liberty to create a contract that says everyone employed at the place of business will be a union member? What about their contractual liberty? Why are you going against that?

You think Paulbots like me are in favor of foreign wars? Wars are the biggest threat to liberty that we face in a democracy.

Two parties have no moral right to conspire to deny liberty to a third party.

This must be some brain tumor among conservatives that equate freedom with the US Constitution and if the US Constitution curtails freedom, then it wasn't really freedom to begin with. It's like some sort of disease.

It's a loss of freedom, no doubt. But it's a lawful restriction, one that we implicitly accept as Americans.

And? Are you suggesting that a CBA between a union and employer agreeing that only people who pay union dues will be employed is a violation of the United States Constitution? If not what is the relevance?

You brought up taxation to pay for the military. Don't accuse people of raising irrelevant points when all we're doing is swatting away your chaff.

Except that the benefits of a CBA are greater than the dues and making it more difficult for unions to function does not give workers more freedom. Apparently you pick and choose which liberties you care about depending on what fits your right wing bias.

AAA is not mandatory for drivers. But the benefits are greater than the dues, so they have no trouble attracting members.

AARP is not mandatory for seniors. But the benefits are greater than the dues, so they have no trouble attracting members.

If the benefits of a CBA are greater than the dues, then unions have nothing to fear from right to work. Prove to me that I'm wrong. Please.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Except that the benefits of a CBA are greater than the dues

Says who? You? I thought it was more appropropriate for the individuals to weigh the merits/demerits of their Unions effectiveness. You know the guys who have a vested interest in the decision.

[Felch]

Seriously, it's crazy how gribbler is so confident that unions are always the right choice, and equally confident that nobody would ever be able to make the right choice without being forced to. It's not like factory workers are incapable of looking at two salaries and figuring out which is higher.

[Felch]

The reason I'm pro-right to work is that I believe unions offer workers a good deal. I'm not afraid of giving people a choice, because I'm confident that they will make the right choice. I think that only a tiny handful of workers don't want to be in their unions. Those people should be free to make that choice, whether or not we agree with it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It's a loss of freedom, no doubt. But it's a lawful restriction, one that we implicitly accept as Americans.

Techically so is a CBA saying a workplace will be a closed shop in a non-RTW state. We have historically, as Americans, accepted that.

You brought up taxation to pay for the military. Don't accuse people of raising irrelevant points when all we're doing is swatting away your chaff.

He's swatting away your chaff. That 'Merica is about freedom and stuff and these things aren't freedom.

If the benefits of a CBA are greater than the dues, then unions have nothing to fear from right to work. Prove to me that I'm wrong. Please.

As pointed out innumerable times before, there is a free rider problem. Employers in open shops will usually pay everyone in the same position the same amount regardless of union or non-union status because it is easier to deal with it that way.

An example, I work for the US government. We have a union that negotiates our salaries/benefits, etc, etc. Those who are not part of the union get the same salaries and benefits as those who are in the union.