Walker v. Public Employees

[RecycleMichael]

When the employee comes to the table with a third party, or as a collective with other employees, the process is corrupted. 

If the workers want to hire someone to represent them to speak on their behalf, they should be allowed to. Think of it as the working man's attorney. In one part of their life, their job, they have somebody looking out for them.

That is all a union is. Workers hiring a spokesman.

This is no different than my homeowners agreeing to collectively hire an attorney to represent them in a zoning case to protect one part of their life, their home.

Because I believe they should be allowed to hire a representative, I am pro-union.

Because their boss may change every two years with an election, I am for government employee unions.   

[Red Arrow]

That is all a union is. Workers hiring a spokesman.

I believe you are wearing selective blinders.  (Kind of like selective hearing.)

[nathanm]

When the employee comes to the table with a third party, or as a collective with other employees, the process is corrupted.  

If you own a business with one employee, sure. If you are Wal-Mart, not so much. The process was already corrupted by the imbalance of power.

Also, you seem to be under the impression that all union contracts necessarily lack merit pay provisions. That is simply not the case.

Also, you might read some economics texts and some books by some of your libertarian fellow travelers. They might help you with definitions. Basically, if there is a distortion of the market due to the size of the participants, there are two main options for dealing with those distortions: First, government interference. Second, collective bargaining.

[guido911]

If you own a business with one employee, sure. If you are Wal-Mart, not so much. The process was already corrupted by the imbalance of power.

Also, you seem to be under the impression that all union contracts necessarily lack merit pay provisions. That is simply not the case.

Also, you might read some economics texts and some books by some of your libertarian fellow travelers. They might help you with definitions. Basically, if there is a distortion of the market due to the size of the participants, there are two main options for dealing with those distortions: First, government interference. Second, collective bargaining.

Nate appears to be channeling Paul Krugman's NYT piece from yesterday. Take a moment and read the inevitable take down (sounds a little familiar to me),

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2011/02/21/paul-krugman-wants-to-balance-out-the-power-of-big-taxpayer/

[nathanm]

Great minds think alike, I guess. I haven't read Krugman lately. (bugmenot hasn't been working for me )

Nonetheless, this is all basic libertarian and conservative economic theory. Exactly what the Tea Party claims to support, except when they don't.

[we vs us]

Nate appears to be channeling Paul Krugman's NYT piece from yesterday. Take a moment and read the inevitable take down (sounds a little familiar to me),

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2011/02/21/paul-krugman-wants-to-balance-out-the-power-of-big-taxpayer/

Public unions are protecting themselves against election cycles and the inevitability of them becoming political targets (ha! irony!).  If you've read much about the patronage system of the late 1800's it wasn't a small concern -- and obviously isn't now. 

[guido911]

I haven't read Krugman lately.

Bwahahahaha.

[RecycleMichael]

For those who have been on TulsaNow for many years, you will know that I have been very critical of union activities. I believe in the right to collective bargain, but do not support many of the ways the bargaining (or even the tactics) of unions.

I was very critical of the Carpenter's Union for the picketing of a private developer who chose to remodel the Mayo Hotel without union members. That caused me an incident with Carpenter Union members shouting at me downtown and at a democratic social function.

I was very critical of the Tulsa Police union for the bargaining during the last three different Mayors. I was told (probably untrue) by a friend officer that he had heard officers say they were following me hoping that I would roll through a stop sign or fail to use a turn signal so they could confront me.

You would think I would be against unions. I have never been a member of one, but still just simply believe they should be allowed in the workplace.

[guido911]

Public unions are protecting themselves against election cycles and the inevitability of them becoming political targets (ha! irony!).  If you've read much about the patronage system of the late 1800's it wasn't a small concern -- and obviously isn't now. 

Well who is protecting the taxpayer? I know, the taxpayers when they elected this governor who ran on just what he is now doing.

[RecycleMichael]

Well who is protecting the taxpayer? I know, the taxpayers when they elected this governor who ran on just what he is now doing.

Show me when candidate for Governor Walker said that he was going to take away the collective bargaining right of state employees.

Prove he ran on that comment.

[guido911]

For those who have been on TulsaNow for many years, you will know that I have been very critical of union activities. I believe in the right to collective bargain, but do not support many of the ways the bargaining (or even the tactics) of unions.

I was so critical of the Carpenter's Union for the picketing of a private developer who chose to remodel the Mayo Hotel without union members. That caused me an incident with Carpenter Union members shouting at me downtown and at a democratic social function.

I was very critical of the Tulsa Police union for the bargaining during the last three different Mayors. I was told (probably untrue) by a friend officer that he had heard officers say they were following me hoping that I would roll through a stop sign or fail to use a turn signal so they could confront me.

You would think I would be against unions. I have never been a member of one, but still just simply believe they should be allowed in the workplace.

I too was critical of the Carpenter's Union and certain unions hiring non-union people to strike for them. However, I wasn't really an "anti-union" guy until what I saw over the past week.

[nathanm]

Well who is protecting the taxpayer? I know, the taxpayers when they elected this governor who ran on just what he is now doing.

Why is he trying to protect the taxpayers from getting the concessions he wanted for them?

[guido911]

Show me when candidate for Governor Walker said that he was going to take away the collective bargaining right of state employees.

Prove he ran on that comment.

Where there's this.

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/02/20/graham-unions-lost-the-wi-referendum-in-november/

And this:

GOP politicians across the country, such as Wisconsin governor Scott Walker, actually campaigned on issues such as reining in public sector unions, which have long impeded necessary government reforms. What's more, after campaigning on the need for public sector union reform — and Walker was explicit about it — the Republican Party had the biggest electoral landslide seen by either party in over 60 years.

The public is well aware that unions have leveraged those bargaining rights to generate outrageous benefits, salaries, privileges, and job security to the point where states are bankrupt. California owes more in unfunded public pension liabilities than the gross national product of Saudi Arabia.

http://www.npr.org/2011/02/18/133874808/weekly-standard-obamas-war-on-the-states

[guido911]

Why is he trying to protect the taxpayers from getting the concessions he wanted for them?

I think I understand what you wrote. Are you honestly equating the interests of union taxpayers to an ordinary taxpayer?

[nathanm]

I think I understand what you wrote. Are you honestly equating the interests of union taxpayers to an ordinary taxpayer?

Um, you're running toward the wrong end zone. The union agreed to the concessions with the exception of the removal of collective bargaining rights. Thus, the taxpayer gets all the savings that Walker asked for. So why has he not accepted that and moved on? Oh, right, it's about ideology, not money. It's about his desire for national office, not about saving the taxpayers diddly squat.