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.

(Talking Points Memo)   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) divider line 179
    More: Asinine, Republican, Wisconsin, Ohio, arizona gop, Goldwater Institute, TPMMuckraker, Jan Brewer, Nuremberg  
•       •       •

1609 clicks; posted to Politics » on 31 Jan 2012 at 11:03 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



179 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-02-01 01:33:05 AM
Was the HERO tag on vacation today?

Unions, protecting the incompetent since day one.
 
2012-02-01 01:36:08 AM

relcec: thornhill: 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, that's not right.

This is what "right to work" means:

In all 52 states, at organizations where a union represents the workers, the union cannot require the employer to only higher union workers (this is called a "closed shop"). If a non-union worker takes a job at a company that has a union, the worker can be required to join the union within 30 days (you'll have to pay dues, but you can request that your dues be only used for activities directly related to bargaining with the employer, so none of the money can go to things like the union's PAC).

In right to work states, new non-union workers cannot be required to join the union after accepting employment. Thus, workers have the "right to work" regardless of it they join the union or not.

So why is this an issue?

If a union exists within the organization, it bargains for all the employees at the organization, including the non-union employees. This results in "free-riding" -- the union does all the heavy lifting, negotiating better wages which benefit the non-union employees who are not paying dues to the union. And if you think you're better off without a union at all, remember, at its core unions are about collectively bargaining -- employers are not going to negotiate with each individual worker, but they will negotiate with a worker who speaks for everyone.

you are worried about free riders?
if you are gonna lie about why you give a shiat, try not to be so transparently disingenuous.
a huge part of liberal political calculation is based on catering to free riders.


I hope that you lose everything. Seriously, everything. Job, family, health, home. And then you have your life saved by the social safety net.

And then when you're back on your feet, the shame of having to have been part of a society drives you to suicide.

/Kidding. I know shiats like you don't have any shame.
 
2012-02-01 01:39:33 AM
When it comes to doing dumb things Arizona is apparently ready to double down.

That's so money.
 
2012-02-01 01:41:56 AM

intelligent comment below: tenpoundsofcheese:
That won't work.
corporations know better than their members and they require blind obedience and a check. It is just a better organized version of the nanny state.

>>>>

FTFY


your fix is wrong.

corporations provide checks, unions take them.
 
2012-02-01 01:45:57 AM

thornhill: tenpoundsofcheese: thornhill:

Free riders weaken the unions because they deprive them of funds. Collective bargaining requires money. The workers need a place to meet to discuss their contract -- someone has to pay for that hall rental. They may need to conduct some kind of study to better advocate their point about health safety at the factory....

Then the workers should be charged more for the "work" the union does.

why do unions feel entitled to other peoples money and resources? Need a room? rent it like everyone else. don't got enough money? then pass the hat around to your members for them to pay. stop with this entitlement mentality already.

Because by law the unions have to represent the non-union workers -- whatever salary and benefits improvements they achieve extends to all workers at an organization, including the non-union ones.

As I stated in response to someone else, right to work is a backdoor way to depriving unions of money by forcing them to represent non-dues paying workers. If there are 500 workers in a plant but only 300 in the union, the union still has to have infrastructure and organization for all 500 workers. As a result, the money the 300 dues paying members provide is diluted by the 200 non-dues paying -- and the law mandates this.


so? you can't have a union beating up on the non-union members (my workers are better, better conditions for them only) so of course they should represent them. If their were enough value in what the union does, money or membership wouldn't be a problem.

sort of like music, huh? if it was valuable enough, people wouldn't "share" it.
 
2012-02-01 01:49:34 AM

LordZorch: Was the HERO tag on vacation today?

Unions, protecting the incompetent since day one.


As long as we're handing out hero tags to people who want to strip others of their rights, how about one for the gun grabbers too? After all, there are plenty of morons who think guns are bad, too - so let's just take 'em away!
After all, if you don't like something, then, by Gawd, nobody should have it!
 
2012-02-01 01:52:28 AM

jso2897: LordZorch: Was the HERO tag on vacation today?

Unions, protecting the incompetent since day one.

As long as we're handing out hero tags to people who want to strip others of their rights,


wtf are you talking about??

union membership is not a constitutionally protected right. not even close.
 
2012-02-01 01:54:00 AM

LordZorch: Was the HERO tag on vacation today?

Unions, protecting the incompetent since day one.


Yep, work was so much better before those damn unions came along to make things safer. Back then, incompetent employees just got killed/mangled by heavy machinery, or burned to death because of sh*tty building design, or overworked for pathetic pay, or...

Yeah, I'm gonna drop the sarcasm and just call you a farkwit.
 
2012-02-01 01:54:22 AM

tenpoundsofcheese:
your fix is wrong.

corporations provide checks, unions take them.



By not paying taxes? Firing American workers and hiring foreigners?
 
2012-02-01 01:55:26 AM

LordZorch: Was the HERO tag on vacation today?

Unions, protecting the incompetent since day one.



Because favoritism never happens in a non union company, never. Only the competent work there! Honest!

I'm sure you also have statistics to back up your conservative loved catch phrase too.
 
2012-02-01 01:56:14 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: jso2897: LordZorch: Was the HERO tag on vacation today?

Unions, protecting the incompetent since day one.

As long as we're handing out hero tags to people who want to strip others of their rights,

wtf are you talking about??

union membership is not a constitutionally protected right. not even close.


"While the United States Constitution's First Amendment identifies the rights to assemble and to petition the government, the text of the First Amendment does not make specific mention of a right to association. Nevertheless, the United States Supreme Court held in NAACP v. Alabama that the freedom of association is an essential part of the Freedom of Speech because, in many cases, people can engage in effective speech only when they join with others."
 
2012-02-01 02:01:47 AM
Huh. And I thought so-called "conservatives" were supposed to respect the right to make and enforce contracts. Guess not.
I also thought they believed in the Constitution and the rights it guarantees, like the right to associate freely and assembly peacefully. Wrong again, it appears.
 
2012-02-01 02:02:51 AM

LordJiro: tenpoundsofcheese: jso2897: LordZorch: Was the HERO tag on vacation today?

Unions, protecting the incompetent since day one.

As long as we're handing out hero tags to people who want to strip others of their rights,

wtf are you talking about??

union membership is not a constitutionally protected right. not even close.

"While the United States Constitution's First Amendment identifies the rights to assemble and to petition the government, the text of the First Amendment does not make specific mention of a right to association. Nevertheless, the United States Supreme Court held in NAACP v. Alabama that the freedom of association is an essential part of the Freedom of Speech because, in many cases, people can engage in effective speech only when they join with others."


you can join whoever you want to and chat it up. doesn't mean I have to employ you.

besides, no one is taking away anyone's right to talk or associate with anyone.
 
2012-02-01 02:05:57 AM

tenpoundsofcheese:
you can join whoever you want to and chat it up. doesn't mean I have to employ you.

besides, no one is taking away anyone's right to talk or associate with anyone.


Dude. Being the assistant manager of McDonalds doesn't make you a business owner.
 
2012-02-01 02:08:20 AM

LordJiro: tenpoundsofcheese: jso2897: LordZorch: Was the HERO tag on vacation today?

Unions, protecting the incompetent since day one.

As long as we're handing out hero tags to people who want to strip others of their rights,

wtf are you talking about??

union membership is not a constitutionally protected right. not even close.

"While the United States Constitution's First Amendment identifies the rights to assemble and to petition the government, the text of the First Amendment does not make specific mention of a right to association. Nevertheless, the United States Supreme Court held in NAACP v. Alabama that the freedom of association is an essential part of the Freedom of Speech because, in many cases, people can engage in effective speech only when they join with others."


What's that? You mean to say that the Constitution says what the courts say it says, and not what my amateur, GED in law analysis of it says?
Well, I'll be damned.
 
2012-02-01 02:15:52 AM
img24.imageshack.us

/I don't know who made it but I saved a copy.
 
2012-02-01 03:29:16 AM
Liberals: Waaah! Stop trying to end our money laundering operation! We had it set up so perfectly. We funnel to unions and and buy votes with tax payer money so in turn public sector unions can funnel that money back to our campaign!

You can quit pretending this has anything to do with workers rights. Public sector unions are bleeding states dry and we can either do something about it in spite of liberal whining about the loss of their money laundering operation or we can let a bunch of hysterical screaming by public sector unions continue to ruin the states and the country with too much spending.
 
2012-02-01 03:31:11 AM

randomjsa: Public sector unions are bleeding states dry


Citation needed
 
2012-02-01 03:39:20 AM

randomjsa: Liberals: Waaah! Stop trying to end our money laundering operation! We had it set up so perfectly. We funnel to unions and and buy votes with tax payer money so in turn public sector unions can funnel that money back to our campaign!

You can quit pretending this has anything to do with workers rights. Public sector unions are bleeding states dry and we can either do something about it in spite of liberal whining about the loss of their money laundering operation or we can let a bunch of hysterical screaming by public sector unions continue to ruin the states and the country with too much spending.


I don't disagree that there are some bad deals made between the public unions and the various governments. I don;t particularly like the underfunded retirement plans, or some of the double dipping abuses. However, there is no point in throwing the baby out with the bath water.

It makes me wonder why Republicans are so scared of public unions, and what their real motivation is? This is a coordinated attack at a national level to wrest one of the main bastions of working class political power, and I will not have it, sir.
 
2012-02-01 03:48:07 AM
Is this the thread where Republicans who are poor, seeing that union members have it better than them, say "Damn them! They shouldn't be making more money than me!" and fire up the jealousy/class warfare machine?
 
2012-02-01 04:03:23 AM

ghare: Is this the thread where Republicans who are poor, seeing that union members have it better than them, say "Damn them! They shouldn't be making more money than me!" and fire up the jealousy/class warfare machine?


Pretty much. Seems they're fond of efforts to lower the wages of everyone who works.
 
2012-02-01 05:06:05 AM
Hey look! another ALEC stooge!!!
 
2012-02-01 05:33:28 AM

Alphax: ghare: Is this the thread where Republicans who are poor, seeing that union members have it better than them, say "Damn them! They shouldn't be making more money than me!" and fire up the jealousy/class warfare machine?

Pretty much. Seems they're fond of efforts to lower the wages of everyone who works.


People who work for their money = Bitter Jealous Class Warriors.

People who's money works for them = Gods not to be questioned.

GOP logic, such as it is.
 
2012-02-01 07:21:10 AM
CaspianXth:
That's the union's problem to solve. Either provide your with a service valuable enough that they will pay for it or maybe the organization isn't worth keeping around. Don't force everyone to associate simply because you can't figure out how to keep people from mooching. Freedom to associate entails freedom to not associate and if I don't want to be in a union, I shouldn't be forced to do so.

The state legislates that "free riders" get the same pay/benefits as union members, while prohibiting exclusive labor agreements between unions and employers. In essence, it's as if a company (the union) was trying to sell its product (membership), while the gov't was offering it for free to all their customers.

Imagine if, instead of trying to pass SOPA or whatever, the US gov't was running a huge file-sharing website where you could download any song or movie. Would that be fair? Or would that be an obvious attempt to destroy movie studios and record companies?

"Right to work" is union-busting, plain and simple.
 
2012-02-01 07:27:55 AM

randomjsa: Liberals: Waaah! Stop trying to end our money laundering operation! We had it set up so perfectly. We funnel to unions and and buy votes with tax payer money so in turn public sector unions can funnel that money back to our campaign!

You can quit pretending this has anything to do with workers rights. Public sector unions are bleeding states dry and we can either do something about it in spite of liberal whining about the loss of their money laundering operation or we can let a bunch of hysterical screaming by public sector unions continue to ruin the states and the country with too much spending.


Well, sure - but the question is - do what? I'm all in favor of subjecting the PE Unions to a few rounds of tough, realistic woodshedding - Gov. Brown has the right idea.
But simply outlawing unions? I really don't think that dog will hunt.
 
2012-02-01 07:55:48 AM
Lookie look at all the Corporate tools and stooges in this thread! Just a normal Union thread at fark.

If you blame teachers for the state budget, you are a farking moron.

The Public Employee hate in these threads is pretty legendary. Frankly, if you don't like us, go move to Somalia. I realize that's an old meme, but I'm getting sick of the shills and the know-nothings talking down to me and my brethren. We are constantly shiat on by idiots, Republicans, parents, and the right wing media. For that alone we deserve decent health care and a pension.

Oh, and I haven't had a pay raise in three years because the Governor decided to use my raise money to fight the voter passed referendum against abortion. You see the public decided to vote against banning abortion but the douche-in-charge decided that wasn't good enough. You read that right. Also, snow-plows don't run because of this wonderful decision. But we're the problem.

/Eat shiat, righties.
 
2012-02-01 08:01:39 AM

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 would love to see a valid citation of a public pension paying out higher than the retirees salary.
 
2012-02-01 08:03:26 AM
...and the GOP race to the bottom continues.
 
2012-02-01 08:06:42 AM

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'm a public employee in Wisconsin and part of the problem is that we aren't given a choice in how we receive our compensation. I would rather not be part of the pension program, but I'm not given that choice. The Republicans here focus on pension and healthcare, but you'll hear nary a word about pay. Why? because, at least at the universities, our pay is lower than average and is not competitive. We are having a difficult time in my college finding academically qualified applicants that are willing to come work for us for the pay we are offering. Prior to Walker, the lower pay was made up by better benefits. Now our benefits are average and our pay is below average.

The university system put out a plan called the Badger Initiative, which would have reduced the amount of tax dollars going to the UW-System schools and would have reduced the amount of government regulation for the system, Walker rejected it for the system schools, but promoted the plan for UW-Madison because it said it would help them remain competitive. I guess he is admitting that his plan makes the UW-System schools less competitive. He needs to go now.
 
2012-02-01 08:08:36 AM

Karac: 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.


Oh this, this, this, this, this.
 
2012-02-01 08:28:35 AM

trotsky: Oh, and I haven't had a pay raise in three years


Ugh look at you leeches ruining the state's budget and furthermore comma
 
2012-02-01 08:38:33 AM
Government employees already have a collective bargaining agreement. It's called "voting."
 
2012-02-01 08:40:21 AM

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.


It's not about you.

It's about workers being able to have some way to be treated fairly and have some counterweight to corporate profits.
 
2012-02-01 08:46:29 AM
"if you had been nice there would be no unions" - Jenny Holzer truism.

I actually saw this piece at the Hirschhorn down in DC. It was engraved into a old fashion concrete bench like people use to have in their gardens.

The concept is actually very funny. Cons hate unions but they then go out and engage in the exact kind of conduct that gives birth to unions. A good example of con stupidity.
 
2012-02-01 08:48:44 AM
The support of so-called "conservatives" for "right-to-work" laws is an interesting revelation of how"conservatives" only believe in free markets when they like the results.
Here's how these laws work: My employees form a union. Their rep, Bob, sits down at a table with me, and we make and sign a contract. Then, the government steps in and says: "No. Sorry. You can't make that contract - we're tearing up your contract".
Some goddamn "free market". Where the hell did the government get the right to forbid me and my workers to make a freely-arrived-at contract?

Yet so-called "conservatives" support this.

(Burl Ives to Paul Newman) "You smell something, Brick?"
 
2012-02-01 08:50:26 AM

intelligent comment below: randomjsa: Public sector unions are bleeding states dry

Citation needed


Still waiting
 
2012-02-01 08:59:36 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: thornhill:

Free riders weaken the unions because they deprive them of funds. Collective bargaining requires money. The workers need a place to meet to discuss their contract -- someone has to pay for that hall rental. They may need to conduct some kind of study to better advocate their point about health safety at the factory....

Then the workers should be charged more for the "work" the union does.

why do unions feel entitled to other peoples money and resources? Need a room? rent it like everyone else. don't got enough money? then pass the hat around to your members for them to pay. stop with this entitlement mentality already.


Because employers feel entitled to their labor and resources and steal value from them? Because landlords enact theft like rent.
Unions do play too much of a reformist role though. Direct action needs a return.
Go wildcat, fark the bureaucrat.
 
2012-02-01 09:00:36 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: Unions know better than their members and they require blind obedience and a check.


So unions and bosses are the same?
 
2012-02-01 09:04:37 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: intelligent comment below: tenpoundsofcheese:
That won't work.
corporations know better than their members and they require blind obedience and a check. It is just a better organized version of the nanny state.

>>>>

FTFY

your fix is wrong.

corporations provide checks, unions take them.


Those checks are lies by ommission.
Every time the corporation makes a profit from you or takes non-labour income, it's pretty much theft.
 
2012-02-01 09:04:42 AM
I don't see what all the derp about free markets and unions is. Unions are absolutely free market. Free market theory basically boils down to human response to incentives. Labor and market conditions incentivise workers to unionize. These asshats should farking love unions.
 
2012-02-01 09:15:57 AM

CPennypacker: I don't see what all the derp about free markets and unions is. Unions are absolutely free market. Free market theory basically boils down to human response to incentives. Labor and market conditions incentivise workers to unionize. These asshats should farking love unions.


As I said earlier - so-called "conservatives" only like free markets when they yield the outcomes they desire.
 
2012-02-01 09:16:18 AM

LordZorch: Was the HERO tag on vacation today?

Unions, protecting the incompetent since day one.


Enjoying your 40-hour work week, troll?
 
2012-02-01 09:25:39 AM

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 know, right. These corporations shoudl be allowed to stop paying what they promised to workers years ago (let's just set aside the fact that they accepted these deferred payments in lieu of raises). It's not he corporation's fault these lazy ass old people failed to account for the fact that they're "little people" when planning for retirement.

Now Newt, he EARNED that $300,000/year.
 
2012-02-01 09:25:57 AM

trotsky:

Oh, and I haven't had a pay raise in three years because my boss didn't think I was worth it and knew that I wouldn't leave to get another job because I can't.


ftfy.
 
2012-02-01 09:28:44 AM

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.


Those benefits are part of the terms of employment. They are promised by the employer. If they are f*cked up, then the employer shouldn't offer them to begin with. Promising deferred compensation and then yanking it away is what is f*cked up.
 
2012-02-01 09:28:49 AM

jso2897:

union membership is not a constitutionally protected right. not even close.

"While the United States Constitution's First Amendment identifies the rights to assemble and to petition the government, the text of the First Amendment does not make specific mention of a right to association. Nevertheless, the United States Supreme Court held in NAACP v. Alabama that the freedom of association is an essential part of the Freedom of Speech because, in many cases, people can engage in effective speech only when they join with others."

What's that? You mean to say that the Constitution says what the courts say it says, and not what my amateur, GED in law analysis of it says?
Well, I'll be damned.


what's that? you mean to say the people in Wisconsin didn't know of this strategy? you better alert them asap so they can stop Walker!

you do have the right to talk and assemble.

I don't have the obligation to listen to you or give you facilities for free so you can meet.
 
2012-02-01 09:33:42 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: trotsky:

Oh, and I haven't had a pay raise in three years because my boss didn't think I was worth it and knew that I wouldn't leave to get another job because I can't.

ftfy.


You know how I know that you have no idea how government employment works?
 
2012-02-01 09:39:50 AM

Wendy's Chili: 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.

Those benefits are part of the terms of employment. They are promised by the employer. If they are f*cked up, then the employer shouldn't offer them to begin with. Promising deferred compensation and then yanking it away is what is f*cked up.


Again - so-called "conservatives" only like free markets, contracts, and contract enforcement when it yields results they like.
 
2012-02-01 09:48:12 AM

Heron: They allow employees to organize themselves openly, and to discuss issues affecting them in a calm, direct, professional manner.


Grunts having the same respect as management, or even self-respect? Do you have any idea how fast the US would collapse if this caught on? Every corporation would fly apart at the seams, except a handful who* operate like Google.


* corporations are people too
 
2012-02-01 09:49:18 AM

Leishu: 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?


They are there. They have no leverage whatsoever, to the point where they may as well not exist.

I escaped Arizona, but my mother hasn't, and she's a teacher. This is the first step. The next will to be fark over all state pensions and benefits, and the teachers who already make nothing, thanks to the state, will have nothing to retire on, either, despite paying into it their entire careers.

/fark you, Arizona
 
Displayed 50 of 179 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report