@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:Of course all of this gives a new meaning to the "collective bargaining rights" mantra endlessly reported by union hacks. There are no such rights.
Wow - you really believe this? I think that if you examined the underpinning of collective bargaining - the right of citizens to self-assemble - you'd reconsider your position, as it is a natural and inevitable extension of that right.
You know who disagreed completely with your position? Ronald Reagan. He famously referred to Unionism and the right to belong to a trade union as "one of Humanity's most elemental rights."
Your screeds on this matter represent the most one-sided accounts of Unionism possible. I don't think we could have better avatar of the Management Position possible here at A2K.
Cycloptichorn
I think you are a bit confused by all the propaganda you consume. Alternatively, perhaps the problem is merely that you don't understand the facts.
Collective bargaining, as unions use the term, is NOT a derivative of the right of assembly. Unions don't want workers in organized industries to be able to choose to do without the union - they are champions of their right to lead assemblies of represented workers, but stoutly oppose any choice on the part of the workers themselves: they insist on a legally sanctioned monopoly - and there is no such right for anyone in this country.
The labor unions have declared the legislation passed by the Assembly in Wisconsin to be "an assault on their collective bargaining rights". This is a flawed and deceptive statement on several levels. Firstly the draft law in Wisconsin limits their rights to bargain over the work rules affecting state employees, but leaves intact significant negotiating rights on pay and benefits - something explicitly prohibited in Federal law governing unions representing Federal employees. That still leaves unions with significantly more bargaining power with the state of Wisconsin than does Federal law governing unions representing employees of the Federal government ! Do you also argue that the Federal government denies unions the "collective bargaining rights" of labor unions? Finally it is simply a fact that the status of labor unions in representing employees, and the limits of their powers and the employers mandated response are defined and established by Federal and state laws. They are absolutely NOT fundamental rights that stand above the law such as freedom of assembly or freedom of speech.
In fact what labor unions call collective bargaining rights involves a good deal of supressi0n of individual rights. Listen to some of their rhetoric about recent initiatives to extend right to work laws beyond the 22 states that currently have them. Their rhetoric is all about the supposed suppression of collective bargaining - however that is a lie. These laws put unions on the exactly same footing vis-a-vis employers in terms of both initial union organizing and collective bargaining as in states without these laws, restricting the unions only in one instance -- they can't require union membership as a precondition of employment by an individual worker, and they can't force employees to become members of the unions. Now I ask you a direct question - are right to work laws more or less protective of individual freedom than laws requiring membership in a union as a precondition to employment?
I agree fully with Reagan that no one should be prevented from joining a union if he/she wishes to do so - and that no one should be compelled to join a union either. Everyone should have the right to do as they wish on all such questions related to the choice of venue for such assemblys . THAT IS a derived element of the right of assembly.
Freedom means the freedom to do something and the freedom not to do it. Organized labor opposes individual freedom.
