Why do Governments get to set the rules for Unions?

[tridim]

Shouldn't the Union members set the rules for the Union? It seems pretty obvious just based on the definition of the word.

[Little Star]

1. I'd like to hear the answer to that question too. k&r

[scutfargus]

2. There are more people involved here than just unions.

Shouldn't the people who pay taxes have a say as to how much they want to pay these people? Isn't that democratic?

The unions are screwing themselves to a wall in Wisconsin. It would have been much smarter for them to simply go along with it. When the wind is in your face, why spit?

Joe Klein:
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2011/02/18/wisconsin-the-hemlock-revolution/

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[KittyWampus]

9. Joe Klein doesn't mention the FACT that Walker invented this deficit even while funneling money to

cronies.

He also neglects to mention that Unions there have offered to take the cuts.

Joe Klein is a tool.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Morning Dew]

17. Go on now, Grover Dill is holding down some little kid for you to beat on.

[NoPasaran]

19. The Koch brothers must be scraping the bottom of the barrel

You should really send that check back

[ljm2002]

21. "It would have been much smarter for them..."

"...to simply go along with it."

I seem to remember similar remarks being made to rape victims, back in the day. "If it's going to happen anyway, just lay back and enjoy it."

This is not about the $$$. In fact the unions have already indicated a willingness to accept the proposed cuts, but the Governor declined to speak with them about it. Because what he really wants is to revoke their collective bargaining rights. Which of course will remove their basic reason for existence, and is union-busting on a grand scale.

I say, F*** that!

And Welcome to DU, m-m-maybe.

[HughBeaumont]

22. 'I'm getting screwed!! Why aren't THEY getting screwed too???"

Yeepppppp, keep riding that rocket to the bottom, just like they want you to. Aim high.

[fishwax]

24. lol

:rofl: :eyes: :rofl:

[rasputin1952]

25. Apparently you don't know much about Unions or just what is...

at stake here.

The WI governor wants to take away collective bargaining, the most important tools a Union has. This is not about wages and retirement funds, or even healthcare it is part of the systematic approach of taking away what has been earned over many years.

There is no "mandate" from the voters of WI to do this, as can be seen by the tens of thousands of people who showed up to stand up for their rights as workers, both Union and non-Union.

There is already recall petitions on the R state senators that voted for this that over 1 year in office as defined by the WI Constitution...and I don't doubt for a second, that come January, there will be a recall of the governor as well.

The ramifications of what is happening in WI will have a nationwide impact, workers are tired of being spit upon, while wildcat investors make billions.

Anyone who dos not see this as an attack on all workers needs to quit watching FAUX "News", and understand that everyone who works for wages should support the good people of WI that are demanding that this legislation be trampled into the dust.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

3. Unions need a legal framework to function in

The current labor law controls the formation of unions and to a lesser extent how they are run and bargaining is done. It has evolved over the years.

Government at all levels is not subject to the same set of rules. Feds are only allowed to have unions due to an executive order dating back to JFK. It varies state by state for their employees, a mix of union shop, banned, and right to work.

[dkf]

4. I guess in a practical sense even two people can band together to create a "union".

The question is if one can bargain for the other and can enter into contracts for others.

[fittosurvive]

5. Not for public sector unions.

[lumberjack_jeff]

8. Replace "union" with "corporation" and you might see the problem.

Unions without a legal framework are gangs.

[tridim]

12. Is there no way to have a legal framework without colluding with the Government?

It just seems incestuous, and obviously dangerous when the Government goes bad due to corporate (Koch) influence. I certainly see a problem there.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

14. WIthout the framework of laws enforced by the government there would be no unions

[Liberal Veteran]

16. Or corporations.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

26. They would exist but under a different guise. The unions not so much

[lumberjack_jeff]

18. That's correct. Government monopolizes the business of making legal frameworks.

[malaise]

10. Because governments in capitalist societies work on behalf

of corporations.

[OHdem10]

13. The Stronger the Union the more powerful and therefore it is

able to set rules.

Private Unions(Unions in Businesses) have all but
decimated by the Republicans over the last 30 years.

Now the assault is on Public Unions. With the private
unions so weak this makes it more difficult for Public
Unions.

We have set back and watch the Unions be destroyed.

[jody]

15. Govt. is chosen to represent We the People by majority vote. That vote allows govt. to grant or take

away privileges.

Laws controlling collective bargaining are one such privilege.

That authority is all embracing with the exception of prohibiting enumerated or un-enumerated unalienable rights that pre-exist our Constitution and do not depend upon it for legitimacy.

Government is obligated to protect those unalienable rights however SCOTUS says govt. may infringe upon them short of prohibition.

[OHdem10]

20. In this instance, the Contracts are with the Government. The schoos

Fire Depts, Toll Workers, Police Dept etc are
state positions. The Union Contract is with the State.

It is the same as if the Contract was between a Business
and the Union.

Right now the State thinks it has the upper hand. We shall
see.

[jody]

23. OK but govt makes laws using authority granted by voters. A minority v. majority dispute may lead to

hostile confrontations over divisive, polarizing political issues such as god, gays, guns, abortion, and the public now realizes privileges granted to public employee unions is another such issue.

I look forward to credible polls seeking opinions on the public employee union issue from workers in the private sector, particularly non-union workers versus union workers, as well as small business owners and the unemployed.