FARK.com: (6914412) Having seen the resounding success of similar legislation in Wisconsin and Ohio, Arizona GOP seeks to ban collective bargaining by all state, county and city employees

If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

		Having seen the resounding success of similar legislation in Wisconsin and Ohio, Arizona GOP seeks to ban collective bargaining by all state, county and city employees (tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com)		179
		More: Asinine, Republican, Wisconsin, Ohio, arizona gop, Goldwater Institute, TPMMuckraker, Jan Brewer, Nuremberg

• • •

1607 clicks; posted to Politics » on 31 Jan 2012 at 11:03 PM | Favorite | share:

Share this link:

URL:

http://fark.com/go/6914412

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

179 Comments (+0 »)

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

edmo		2012-01-31 09:07:15 PM

I've been gone about 10 years but there were no unions in Arizona then.

violentsalvation		2012-01-31 09:36:01 PM

As far as I can tell, that will change nothing.

Seth'n'Spectrum		2012-01-31 11:09:16 PM

This doesn't make any sense. Collective bargaining is a natural response that you can't exactly legislate. When employers act like dicks, workers will get upset. Whether they organize themselves openly or in secret, the result will be the same in the end: a strike.

Legislating collective bargaining is like legislating the natural right to self-defense - it's simply not possible or even coherent as a legal concept.

NateGrey		2012-01-31 11:09:42 PM

Republicans spent 8 years destroying the country now they are taking it to a state level.

Harry_Seldon		2012-01-31 11:11:07 PM

I feel there is a problem with this, but nothing I can point a finger at.

Silvara		2012-01-31 11:11:42 PM

Seth'n'Spectrum: This doesn't make any sense. Collective bargaining is a natural response that you can't exactly legislate. When employers act like dicks, workers will get upset. Whether they organize themselves openly or in secret, the result will be the same in the end: a strike.

Legislating collective bargaining is like legislating the natural right to self-defense - it's simply not possible or even coherent as a legal concept.

Arizona is a "right to work" state - which basically equals "right to fire". There are no unions in AZ, and if workers strike, they can just be fired. At least that's how it was when I was there.

chopit		2012-01-31 11:13:02 PM

NateGrey: Republicans spent 30 years destroying the country now they are taking it to a state level.

Fixed that for ya. We're finally seeing what trickle down economics really means.

I_Am_Weasel		2012-01-31 11:14:11 PM

Most people cry when cutting unions. Apparently, not all.

Don't Troll Me Bro!		2012-01-31 11:17:35 PM

Silvara: Seth'n'Spectrum: This doesn't make any sense. Collective bargaining is a natural response that you can't exactly legislate. When employers act like dicks, workers will get upset. Whether they organize themselves openly or in secret, the result will be the same in the end: a strike.

Legislating collective bargaining is like legislating the natural right to self-defense - it's simply not possible or even coherent as a legal concept.

Arizona is a "right to work" state - which basically equals "right to fire". There are no unions in AZ, and if workers strike, they can just be fired. At least that's how it was when I was there.

Are you sure you're not getting "right to work" confused with "employment at will?"

Craptastic		2012-01-31 11:19:22 PM

Unions bad hurr hurr hurr!

GhostFish		2012-01-31 11:21:21 PM

Punish the shiat out of the common man for the fark-ups of the political elites, the corporations, and the super rich.

Pour it on, assholes. We'll just hurry up with sharpening the guillotines.

culebra		2012-01-31 11:23:00 PM

red5ish		2012-01-31 11:24:41 PM

"In Arizona, we believe that the political will exists to do even more comprehensive reform," Dranias said. "The environment, the climate that we face in Arizona is much more receptive to these kinds of reforms than Wisconsin is."

Add the word "reform" to your code books comrades.

1N Th3 Ph1n4l 4n4ly512, n4t10N4L 5trU99l3 12 4 m4tt3R 0F cL422 5TRU99L3. 4M0N9 Th3 Wh1t32 1n TH3 Un1t3D 5t4T32, 1t 12 0NlY th3 R34CT10N4Ry rUL1N' C1RCl32 Th@ 0pPR352 th3 8l4cK p30Pl3. Th3y c4N 1n n0 w4Y R3pr353NT th3 W0rK3r2, PH4Rm3R2, R3v0LuT10N4Ry 1NT3ll3CTU4L2 4nD 0th3r 3NL19Ht3n3d p3R50N2 wh0 c0Mpr123 th3 0v3rwH3lm1n' m4J0r1Ty 0F Th3 WH1t3 P30pL3.

pudding7		2012-01-31 11:25:16 PM

I'm pretty liberal, but I'm anti-government employee union. For private businesses and unions, there is almost always an alternative to doing business with them. If Vons or Ralphs employees go on strike, I can shop at Trader Joes.

If the DMV people go on strike, I have no alternative.

Gunther		2012-01-31 11:25:47 PM

At this point, I'm betting the GOP is playing a game called "How much can we stomp on the working class before we lose their votes?".

Leishu		2012-01-31 11:26:49 PM

Silvara: Seth'n'Spectrum: This doesn't make any sense. Collective bargaining is a natural response that you can't exactly legislate. When employers act like dicks, workers will get upset. Whether they organize themselves openly or in secret, the result will be the same in the end: a strike.

Legislating collective bargaining is like legislating the natural right to self-defense - it's simply not possible or even coherent as a legal concept.

Arizona is a "right to work" state - which basically equals "right to fire". There are no unions in AZ, and if workers strike, they can just be fired. At least that's how it was when I was there.

The AEA has been around since the 1800s; The AFOP has been around since 1915. Perhaps you just weren't aware of the unions that were there?

theknuckler_33		2012-01-31 11:27:18 PM

edmo: I've been gone about 10 years but there were no unions in Arizona then.

I was wondering about that. I figured this was a 'rally the base' type move.

Because People in power are Stupid		2012-01-31 11:28:14 PM

How dare employees of Arizona demand anything. Let's shoot them.

StopLurkListen		2012-01-31 11:29:33 PM

Possibly-related CSB

My state's unemployment is far harsher than any business. You have to file every other Friday; mailing it outside of their correct range results in weeks of scrutiny as if you are a criminal. I made a mistake on one form, SIX MONTHS later I get them to court and ... the judge finds in my favor.

Not just in my favor -- The judge ruled that the State were being total dicks.

Dicks. Totes.

Heron		2012-01-31 11:32:06 PM

Seth'n'Spectrum: This doesn't make any sense. Collective bargaining is a natural response that you can't exactly legislate. When employers act like dicks, workers will get upset. Whether they organize themselves openly or in secret, the result will be the same in the end: a strike.

Legislating collective bargaining is like legislating the natural right to self-defense - it's simply not possible or even coherent as a legal concept.

Exactly! I've been saying that since this whole thing started. Besides, trying to restrict the ability of unions to exist or operate is itself illegal; unions are associations, and the right to associate with who you like, how you like, is a right that's been recognized since before the Revolution.

gaspode		2012-01-31 11:32:50 PM

Odd to try to energize your opposition in the lead up to a general, but hey, have at it.

theknuckler_33		2012-01-31 11:36:22 PM

While I am pro union, I am anti pension and anti reitree healthcare provided by the former employer (unless largely (>50%) contributed to by the retiree). Not having to invest anything your whole career and expecting your former employer to pay you and your healthcare premiums the rest of your life is pretty farked up.

Don't Troll Me Bro!		2012-01-31 11:36:26 PM

Gunther: At this point, I'm betting the GOP is playing a game called "How much can we stomp on the working class before we lose their votes?".

They've been doing that for many years. They're just now getting to the point where they start losing votes.

organizmx		2012-01-31 11:36:59 PM

Good, let the north be more and more like Canada, and the south more and more like Mexico. Adios, mon amie.

Leishu		2012-01-31 11:37:09 PM

heinekenftw		2012-01-31 11:40:17 PM

Not surprised that Jan Brewer is this stupid.

Heron		2012-01-31 11:40:45 PM

pudding7: I'm pretty liberal, but I'm anti-government employee union. For private businesses and unions, there is almost always an alternative to doing business with them. If Vons or Ralphs employees go on strike, I can shop at Trader Joes.

If the DMV people go on strike, I have no alternative.

That's all well and good, but denying gov employees the right to assemble and petition for redress means allowing them to be taken advantage of by their employer(not to mention such rights are directly mentioned in the Constitution). Denying them the right to negotiate with that employer forces them to rely on more extreme methods like strikes. And it isn't exactly like barring unions or strikes will even work. Let's say you make it illegal for them to form a union. Ok, then the angry gov employees who've dealt with 6 straight years of having their budget cut and being expected to do more work with less won't go on strike; they'll just all call in sick one day. And the day after that. And the day after that. Public sector unions allow you the chance to deal with labor issues before problems like this arise. They allow employees to organize themselves openly, and to discuss issues affecting them in a calm, direct, professional manner.

culebra		2012-01-31 11:42:42 PM

Next up, the Arizona GOP will conspire to win a footrace by shooting themselves in the foot.

Kung_Fu_Hamster		2012-01-31 11:44:07 PM

culebra: Next up, the Arizona GOP will conspire to win a footrace by shooting themselves in the foot.

Don't give them any ideas.

CravenMorehead		2012-01-31 11:44:41 PM

How does Arizona not have its own tag yet?

Fart_Machine		2012-01-31 11:45:07 PM

theknuckler_33: While I am pro union, I am anti pension and anti reitree healthcare provided by the former employer (unless largely (>50%) contributed to by the retiree). Not having to invest anything your whole career and expecting your former employer to pay you and your healthcare premiums the rest of your life is pretty farked up.

You're aware that employees pay into their pension plan the entire time they're employed right?

theknuckler_33		2012-01-31 11:45:30 PM

Leishu: pudding7: I'm pretty liberal, but I'm anti-government employee union. For private businesses and unions, there is almost always an alternative to doing business with them. If Vons or Ralphs employees go on strike, I can shop at Trader Joes.

If the DMV people go on strike, I have no alternative.

So they should have no recourse when decent working conditions are not provided or their rights are not respected?

Remember, the fact that YOU have no other option also means that, often, THEY have no other option. This makes collective bargaining that much more important, as a single organization tends to have a monopoly or near-monopoly on their form of employment.

Most federal employment laws cover these things. I work at a place that has no unions and we are notified incessantly about the various ways in which we should be aware to avoid discrimination of any kind, etc. etc. I'm not complaining about this, but unions are not protecting their members from bad conditions or harassment (other than possibly harassment about being part of the union). Unions generally allow a collective group of relatively unwealthy people belong to a group that can wield political influence to counter the corporations and uber wealthy. This alone is a worthwhile reason and unions shouldn't shy away from that reason. In fact, that should loudly be their reason for existence at this point. If campaign finance laws were radically rewritten to publicly finance campaigns, unions would probably dissolve as a matter of course.

tenpoundsofcheese		2012-01-31 11:46:48 PM

NateGrey: Republicans spent 8 years destroying the country now they are taking it to a state level.

wow. you figured out our secret plan. darn.

by the way if the country is destroyed, do you need to take it to a state level? wouldn't the states already be destroyed if the country is destroyed?

i need to report to the overlords that (a) someone figured out our plan and (b) that maybe we did this in the wrong order.

doyner		2012-01-31 11:48:13 PM

Vangor		2012-01-31 11:48:41 PM

pudding7: If the DMV people go on strike, I have no alternative.

The problem for you with government employees receiving collective bargaining rights is the possibility of greater inconvenience when striking as compared to employees of private organizations?

An actual problem exists with government employees being on strike which is how indirect pressures are on the agency. In private business, the pressures are direct by reducing income. In government, the pressures are indirect because the only thing officials have to concern themselves with is the constituency, provided the constituency agrees with the workers and sees lack of concessions from the agency as hostile to the workers rather than the actions of the workers as annoying. I have no solution for this, and this is not a significant enough problem to restrict worker rights of government employees, but this is an actual problem unlike somewhat more inconvenience.

Karac		2012-01-31 11:48:46 PM

I find it intriguing that the group of people who believe the government can do nothing right and is at best a necessary evil overlaps so well with the group that believes that the government is such a good employer that it's workers will never need to speak as a group.

Heron		2012-01-31 11:49:07 PM

theknuckler_33: While I am pro union, I am anti pension and anti reitree healthcare provided by the former employer (unless largely (>50%) contributed to by the retiree). Not having to invest anything your whole career and expecting your former employer to pay you and your healthcare premiums the rest of your life is pretty farked up.

I agree that it's better to do that stuff through the State, but there were valid reasons why, in the post-WWII world, the US encouraged companies to set up generous pensions instead of doing it entirely through the national government. Most of those sorts of pensions were via tax law anyway, and remember; companies use generous pensions plans as a selling point to potential employees. They are part of the compensation package these companies offered to get those workers, and moreover, contracts they agreed to when the employment contract was signed. A popular line of attack on unions is that they violate the right of the individual to set their own contract, but who's really breaking a contract in these situations; the worker who joins a union to enforce his employment agreement, or the employer who tries to weasel out of the pension he offered to win that employee via unilateral "renegotiation"?

Luneward		2012-01-31 11:50:16 PM

Seth'n'Spectrum: This doesn't make any sense. Collective bargaining is a natural response that you can't exactly legislate. When employers act like dicks, workers will get upset. Whether they organize themselves openly or in secret, the result will be the same in the end: a strike.

Legislating collective bargaining is like legislating the natural right to self-defense - it's simply not possible or even coherent as a legal concept.

Yet they seem to love doing it. I live in South Dakota, and when I saw a headline in our paper a week ago that some republican legislator had introduced one of these bills, I literally facepalmed.

One of the comments in the article was pretty much dead on. It was essentially this: "We already have almost the lowest paid teachers and public employees in the nation. You want to chase more people out of the state?"

dahmers love zombie		2012-01-31 11:50:25 PM

pudding7		2012-01-31 11:51:20 PM

Heron: Seth'n'Spectrum: This doesn't make any sense. Collective bargaining is a natural response that you can't exactly legislate. When employers act like dicks, workers will get upset. Whether they organize themselves openly or in secret, the result will be the same in the end: a strike.

Legislating collective bargaining is like legislating the natural right to self-defense - it's simply not possible or even coherent as a legal concept.

Exactly! I've been saying that since this whole thing started. Besides, trying to restrict the ability of unions to exist or operate is itself illegal; unions are associations, and the right to associate with who you like, how you like, is a right that's been recognized since before the Revolution.

I guess the counter-argument would, Ok sure have your union, but we'll just fire you if you don't come to work for a week.

theknuckler_33		2012-01-31 11:51:55 PM

Fart_Machine: theknuckler_33: While I am pro union, I am anti pension and anti reitree healthcare provided by the former employer (unless largely (>50%) contributed to by the retiree). Not having to invest anything your whole career and expecting your former employer to pay you and your healthcare premiums the rest of your life is pretty farked up.

You're aware that employees pay into their pension plan the entire time they're employed right?

Not always. I realize the situation isn't black and white. Some unions pay pensions instead of the employer, then the problem is the union's problem. Let's just put it this way by way of anecdote, I know a retired cop who makes more from his pension than he ever did in salary. That's farked up beyond belief. I know anecdotes are not data, but that should never happen and if you think that situation is unique, you are kidding yourself. If anything your 'benefit' should be a fixed dollar amount when you retire. You can take it lump sum or as an annuity over the number of years of your choice. It should not be X dollars per year forever especially if the latter involves an X that is higher than your salary at retirement. farkin' A... I'd be happy with 2/3 of my salary at retirement and I fund my own retirement plan (admittedly with an average company match). To pay someone full salary (or better) in retirement is inconceivable.

theknuckler_33		2012-01-31 11:52:48 PM

doyner: theknuckler_33: While I am pro union, I am anti pension and anti reitree healthcare provided by the former employer (unless largely (>50%) contributed to by the retiree). Not having to invest anything your whole career and expecting your former employer to pay you and your healthcare premiums the rest of your life is pretty farked up.

Sooooo a salary or wage is the only reasonable remuneration for an employee?

No. I get a decent match on my 401K... see my post just before this one.

Bennie Crabtree		2012-01-31 11:53:21 PM

dahmers love zombie		2012-01-31 11:53:31 PM

theknuckler_33: Fart_Machine: theknuckler_33: While I am pro union, I am anti pension and anti reitree healthcare provided by the former employer (unless largely (>50%) contributed to by the retiree). Not having to invest anything your whole career and expecting your former employer to pay you and your healthcare premiums the rest of your life is pretty farked up.

You're aware that employees pay into their pension plan the entire time they're employed right?

Not always. I realize the situation isn't black and white. Some unions pay pensions instead of the employer, then the problem is the union's problem. Let's just put it this way by way of anecdote, I know a retired cop who makes more from his pension than he ever did in salary. That's farked up beyond belief. I know anecdotes are not data, but that should never happen and if you think that situation is unique, you are kidding yourself. If anything your 'benefit' should be a fixed dollar amount when you retire. You can take it lump sum or as an annuity over the number of years of your choice. It should not be X dollars per year forever especially if the latter involves an X that is higher than your salary at retirement. farkin' A... I'd be happy with 2/3 of my salary at retirement and I fund my own retirement plan (admittedly with an average company match). To pay someone full salary (or better) in retirement is inconceivable.

i.imgur.com

Mildot		2012-01-31 11:53:53 PM

m2313		2012-01-31 11:55:05 PM

Bennie Crabtree: if you get rid of CB, then you can legislate against walkouts, and hire Pinkertons.

We don't need Pinktertons to protect capitalism and the state anymore.
We just call them police now.

doyner		2012-01-31 11:55:43 PM

theknuckler_33: doyner: theknuckler_33: While I am pro union, I am anti pension and anti reitree healthcare provided by the former employer (unless largely (>50%) contributed to by the retiree). Not having to invest anything your whole career and expecting your former employer to pay you and your healthcare premiums the rest of your life is pretty farked up.

Sooooo a salary or wage is the only reasonable remuneration for an employee?

No. I get a decent match on my 401K... see my post just before this one.

Fair enough, but if state government jobs paid enough to keep up with long term health care you might have a point.

elchip		2012-01-31 11:56:30 PM

Silvara: Arizona is a "right to work" state - which basically equals "right to fire". There are no unions in AZ, and if workers strike, they can just be fired. At least that's how it was when I was there.

No, "right to work" means that you can't get fired for not joining a union. So it's kind of a sweet deal, you don't have to join, you don't pay union dues and you still get many of the perks of being in a company that has a union.

It has the intended effect of weakening unions by slashing their dues.

jjorsett		2012-01-31 11:57:07 PM

Heron: Seth'n'Spectrum: This doesn't make any sense. Collective bargaining is a natural response that you can't exactly legislate. When employers act like dicks, workers will get upset. Whether they organize themselves openly or in secret, the result will be the same in the end: a strike.

Legislating collective bargaining is like legislating the natural right to self-defense - it's simply not possible or even coherent as a legal concept.

Exactly! I've been saying that since this whole thing started. Besides, trying to restrict the ability of unions to exist or operate is itself illegal; unions are associations, and the right to associate with who you like, how you like, is a right that's been recognized since before the Revolution.

You're free to associate and unionize all you want, but the state doesn't have to collect your union's dues for you. If the union provides a wanted service, it should have no problem getting the dues from members voluntarily.

theknuckler_33		2012-01-31 11:58:47 PM

Heron: the employment contract

What is this?

I'm just making the point that non-union folks don't have any employment contract. Believe me, I understand the reason pensions were created in the first place, I'm just saying that they got WAY out of control. I realize hindsight is 20-20, etc. A fixed amount of benefit at retirement would have been the way to go instead of a 'lifetime' salary. This kind of plan was implemented at a time when lifespans were increasing in this country. People thought, in the 40's-50's, that people would live to about 68 or whatever and they ended up living 10 years longer and that farked everything up (well, it helped fark everything up). Obviously non-union shops caught on to this problem 20 years ago or so and got away from pensions. Unions shops and the government are far behind the curve on this and it is no surprise that union businesses like the auto industry and the government are the one's that had/have the biggest problems the past 10 years.

Displayed 50 of 179 comments