dagblog - Comments for "Collective Bargaining should be a constitutional Right."

Fortunately, ed, our Democrat

brewmn — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 18:18:00 +0000

In reply to In the private sector, the

Fortunately, ed, our Democrat (that is your preferred term, no?) governor and legislature did the right thing in regards to our state's budget crisis: they raised our ridiculously low income tax to more reasonable levels. I'm sure you agree?

I see. In that case, why is

Verified Atheist — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 17:16:52 +0000

In reply to In the private sector, the

I see. In that case, why is collective bargaining (which is what Gov. Walker is trying to eliminate) even needed? I mean, the employees' bosses fall into the same category as their negotiators, so surely they're already getting everything they could want, right?

C'mon. Think it through. Don't just parrot your sides' talking points.

Anectodal diddy, brought to

Bruce Levine — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 17:13:20 +0000

In reply to In the private sector, the

Anectodal diddy, brought to you by a guy with "public sector friends". He must be corrrect, ain't?

In the private sector, the

edward — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 16:54:52 +0000

In reply to Collective Bargaining should be a constitutional Right.

In the private sector, the bargaining table has a workers rep on one side and a company rep on the other. They bang heads, argue and eventually come to a financial agreement.

In the public sector, a tax sucking person sits on BOTH sides of the table. There is no incentive to get more from the employees. The tax sucking negotiator wants the union to think he's a nice guy and ask for him again next time so he can suck more tax money.

My public sector friends take 60 to 100k from my pocket each year in wages and benefits. I need protection from them...especially in IL where I live. In reality, our state is 60 Billion in the hole with unfunded pensions and benefits for the "poor downtrodden" public sector tax suckers.

Our eyes have been opened.

I agree completely.For the

Flavius — Mon, 07 Mar 2011 22:33:00 +0000

In reply to Actually, Walker is trying to

I agree completely.

For the commentators indulging themselves in a cheerful vision of the spontaneous emergence of cooperative consultative process I was trying to point out Walker's "no collective bargaining" means ...........no collective bargaining.

We know where that leads .Been there done that. At best to the Soviet Union's "they pretend to pay us and we pretend to work". . More likely, welcome to the 19th century..

Actually, Walker is trying to

acanuck — Mon, 07 Mar 2011 18:40:43 +0000

In reply to Scott Walker isn't trying to

Actually, Walker is trying to ban unions, Flavius. The sunset clause, under which unions need an annual approval vote by 51% of total membership to avoid decertification, guarantees their not-so-slow disappearance. I've chaired general meetings. It's hard enough to get quorums, let alone 51% attendance, let alone unanimity from those present. Once those unions are decerted, as Stringsteen sings, "they ain't coming back."

We don't disagree. Union

acanuck — Mon, 07 Mar 2011 18:29:32 +0000

In reply to The distinction I was trying

We don't disagree. Union activists know the "traditional" industrial structure by itself can't provide the revival and expansion the labor movement needs. So yes, health-care, minimum work standards and retirement plans for independent workers and free-lancers must be part of the mix. I'm just saying unions can do that, and the smartest ones already have.

Good eye and good point

oleeb — Mon, 07 Mar 2011 15:07:10 +0000

In reply to Thanks, oleeb. That is one

Good eye and good point acanuck!

Scott Walker isn't trying to

Flavius — Mon, 07 Mar 2011 13:11:13 +0000

In reply to Collective Bargaining should be a constitutional Right.

Scott Walker isn't trying to ban unions, he's trying to ban collective bargaining.

With respect to unions it's ironic that criticism so frequently alludes to Reagan and the Air Traffic Controllers when they had been his most prominent labor supporters in 1980 .

In the case of the Teamsters clearly they deserved their reputation when Jimmy and Freddie fought for control. And Jimmy ended up in a barrel under the Meadowlands.

But for me any sweeping generalization even about that period has to take into account the good guy I knew who became President of the Local when his predecessor was found at the bottom of the Ohio River.

Which side are you on, indeed.

The distinction I was trying

kgb999 — Mon, 07 Mar 2011 09:36:19 +0000

In reply to kgb, I keep seeing at dagblog

The distinction I was trying to make related to diversity of various employment scenarios. The "traditional" structure I see as an industrial model with a worker's union involvement heavily linked to the physical location where their work is performed - or the company for which they work - and focus on long-term employment contracts, benefits packages, etc. In contrast, SAG membership more goes with the artist from company to company within an industry where various contracts cover each relationship. Then there are groups like ASCAP (which I'm a member of) .... it isn't exactly a full-on union like SAG or AFM but has started doing some stuff like putting together a group health plan, etc. Largely, I see most people exclusively envisioning the first type of structure when they talk about expanding the labor movement.

For a lot of industries - especially areas of IT - an organization that supports the worker through a series of short term contracts along the lines of SAG would probably better meet the needs. My real point was that between the various extant structures we have a pretty good model - if not specific organization - to build on in servicing the representation needs for almost any cross-section of the American working public without having to reinvent the wheel.

(I lived in Las Vegas for over a decade ... pretty strong private sector unions in hospitality, entertainment and mining. Reid supports them - they support Reid.)