Obama '08?

My opinion is, either they go to work, or let the state of Wisconsin find people that want to work to get the job done, don't ya think? With all the unemployed out there, they shouldn't have much trouble finding people that need work and want to work.

parados wrote:

So okie, do you think people should be able to bargain with their employer when it comes to wages, benefits, and vacations?

As individuals, yes. In fact, I have done so. Its called freedom. But the employer should also have freedom. It is a two way street. I might even consider the validity of unions working for private enterprise, if the unions do not resort to thuggery, but I believe public sector or government employees are a different matter. The pay and benefits should be openly identified, and the prospective employees can decide whether they want to work or not. This is supposed to be a free country, and so government employment should not be ruled by union dictators.

There's nothing wrong with the concept of public employment unions at all.

Quote:

As individuals, yes. In fact, I have done so. Its called freedom. But the employer should also have freedom. It is a two way street.

So is it a 2 way street if the employer can deny the employee the ability to bargain? What if the employer could use the government to force the employee to take whatever the employer offers? Would that be freedom?

parados wrote:

Quote:

As individuals, yes. In fact, I have done so. Its called freedom. But the employer should also have freedom. It is a two way street.

So is it a 2 way street if the employer can deny the employee the ability to bargain? What if the employer could use the government to force the employee to take whatever the employer offers? Would that be freedom?

This is not a case of the government forcing an employee to take whatever is offered. The employee is free to go work someplace else if they don't like the offer. Neither should the government or the taxpayers be forced to pay the employees whatever they demand. As I said, this is a two way street. Similar to marriage, it takes the agreement of both parties to the agreement. No need to make it more complicated than it should be.

I guess by your logic you'd agree that our government doesn't 'force' you to do anything. After all, you could always just leave the country if you don't like it, right?

Next time you are bitching about the mandate or anything the Dems have done, I'll remind you that you're always welcome to quit living here. Would you find that to be a reasonable response to your concerns?

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I guess by your logic you'd agree that our government doesn't 'force' you to do anything. After all, you could always just leave the country if you don't like it, right?

Next time you are bitching about the mandate or anything the Dems have done, I'll remind you that you're always welcome to quit living here. Would you find that to be a reasonable response to your concerns?

Cycloptichorn

Good grief, cyclops, the government is not forcing any civilian to work for them. Are you out of your mind? Do you have any ability to think logically? Seriously, I am being sarcastic, but you libs make no sense.

Jobs are different than paying taxes. The government does force us to pay taxes for example, or at least if we do not, we are subject to being prosecuted for it. We have all kinds of laws that we are forced to abide by so to speak, but taking a civilian government job is not one of them.

Under you logic, should the military be unionized? Do you realize how silly you have become?

Wait a tick - you and Ican accuse the Dems of 'ramming things down your throat' and 'stealing your money through taxation' and stuff like that all the time.

What you have written here has nothing to do with anything I wrote OR the conversation at hand, at all.
Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Wait a tick - you and Ican accuse the Dems of 'ramming things down your throat' and 'stealing your money through taxation' and stuff like that all the time.

Nobody is forcing you to work for the State of California. Go get a different job if you don't like all the perks you have now, which apparently includes the use of government computers to post your opinions here.

Quote:

What you have written here has nothing to do with anything I wrote OR the conversation at hand, at all.
Cycloptichorn

It has everything to do with it. If you have any ability to reason, the points should be obvious.

You are niggling about the points, cyclops, to avoid facing the truth.

Questions:
Should the government civilian employees be able to unionize to browbeat the taxpayers into giving them whatever they demand?

If so, should the military servicemen be able to unionize?

Should taxpayers have the ability to hire whomever they please to do the work their government is mandated to do?

okie wrote:

You are niggling about the points, cyclops, to avoid facing the truth.
Questions:
Should the government civilian employees be able to unionize to browbeat the taxpayers into giving them whatever they demand?

What do you mean 'browbeat?' They can negotiate with management the way that any other union does. That's clearly legal and the right to self-organize is a fundamental one in our society.

Quote:

If so, should the military servicemen be able to unionize?

No, because members of the military don't enjoy the same rights as private citizens do. It's part of the agreement they sign when they enroll in the military. But, you knew that when you wrote this.

Quote:

Should taxpayers have the ability to hire whomever they please to do the work their government is mandated to do?

Only by electing officials to act as their servants. Taxpayers have no direct say and no right at all to have a direct say as to who and who doesn't get hired in non-elected positions.
This is fundamental stuff about our society, Okie.
Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:

You are niggling about the points, cyclops, to avoid facing the truth.
Questions:
Should the government civilian employees be able to unionize to browbeat the taxpayers into giving them whatever they demand?

What do you mean 'browbeat?' They can negotiate with management the way that any other union does. That's clearly legal and the right to self-organize is a fundamental one in our society.

Quote:

If so, should the military servicemen be able to unionize?

No, because members of the military don't enjoy the same rights as private citizens do. It's part of the agreement they sign when they enroll in the military. But, you knew that when you wrote this.

Bingo!!! So do civilian employees agree to the terms when they take a job. I see no difference actually.

The only difference is what job the government has given them to do, and many civilian jobs are to do the peoples work and serve us, the taxpayers, just as the military is doing the peoples work by protecting us.

Quote:

Should taxpayers have the ability to hire whomever they please to do the work their government is mandated to do?

Only by electing officials to act as their servants. Taxpayers have no direct say and no right at all to have a direct say as to who and who doesn't get hired in non-elected positions.
This is fundamental stuff about our society, Okie.
Cycloptichorn

What terms?!?!? You just made that up. I haven't seen any evidence that civilians in these jobs signed anything that disallows their right to self-organize.

Provide evidence of this agreement if you want your argument to be

Quote:

The only difference is what job the government has given them to do, and many civilian jobs are to do the peoples work and serve us, the taxpayers, just as the military is doing the peoples work by protecting us.

Totally different. Military members don't have access to civilian courts, even; they have a whole different justice system. Your analogy, as usual, stinks!

Quote:

Should taxpayers have the ability to hire whomever they please to do the work their government is mandated to do?

Only by electing officials to act as their servants. Taxpayers have no direct say and no right at all to have a direct say as to who and who doesn't get hired in non-elected positions.
This is fundamental stuff about our society, Okie.
Cycloptichorn

Quote:

Yes, it is fundamental, and as the article I posted earlier, the situation in Wisconsin is a classic case of the government and its employees special interests colliding with the interests of the people that are supposed to be able to self determine through our elected officials how our tax money is spent to serve us. Maybe you have not caught on, but the people are fed up with government bureaucracies and government employees that have forgotten who they should be working for. I would advise you to watch what happens in Wisconsin very closely, because you could learn some things.

Oh, I think we are indeed learning something. But I don't think it's going to be the lesson you had in mind.
Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

What terms?!?!? You just made that up. I haven't seen any evidence that civilians in these jobs signed anything that disallows their right to self-organize.

Surely there are pre-agreed terms of payment and benefits. Perhaps those terms do not disallow the right to belong to a union, but I am asserting here that perhaps those terms should do that? I think we need to take another look at that.

I have posted the information about JFK's executive order that opened the door to unionized civilian government employees, and the results have not been positive in my opinion. I believe that we as taxpayers through our elected officials should have the right to hire according to the pay and benefits we determine, not to be re-negotiated all the time.

Provide evidence of this agreement if you want your argument to be [taken seriously]

Quote:

Quote:

The only difference is what job the government has given them to do, and many civilian jobs are to do the peoples work and serve us, the taxpayers, just as the military is doing the peoples work by protecting us.

Totally different. Military members don't have access to civilian courts, even; they have a whole different justice system. Your analogy, as usual, stinks!

I think it is a good analogy. Sorry I do not agree with every liberal idea here. Nor do a huge segment of Americans agree with you, cyclops. Perhaps you need to wake up to that?

Quote:

Quote:

Should taxpayers have the ability to hire whomever they please to do the work their government is mandated to do?

Only by electing officials to act as their servants. Taxpayers have no direct say and no right at all to have a direct say as to who and who doesn't get hired in non-elected positions.
This is fundamental stuff about our society, Okie.
Cycloptichorn

Yes, that is what has happened in Wisconsin, the voters elected a governor to clean up the mess.

Quote:

Quote:

Yes, it is fundamental, and as the article I posted earlier, the situation in Wisconsin is a classic case of the government and its employees special interests colliding with the interests of the people that are supposed to be able to self determine through our elected officials how our tax money is spent to serve us. Maybe you have not caught on, but the people are fed up with government bureaucracies and government employees that have forgotten who they should be working for. I would advise you to watch what happens in Wisconsin very closely, because you could learn some things.

Oh, I think we are indeed learning something. But I don't think it's going to be the lesson you had in mind.
Cycloptichorn

I hope the taxpayers win, cyclops. Where do you stand? Do you want the government to be by the people and for the people, or do you want the inmates to continue to run the asylum?

What do you mean 'browbeat?' They can negotiate with management the way that any other union does. That's clearly legal and the right to self-organize is a fundamental one in our society.

Cycloptichorn

I believe this event will backfire badly on the public sector labor unions and their paid Democrat toadies.

It has benome increasingly clear to a growing number of people that many of their elected legislators are in the pockets of the public sector employee unions and that gross financial abuses of public treasuries have occurred.

Now we have public sector unions striking and agitating for the rest of us to pay whatever taxes are required to fund the sweetheard deals theyu have cut with their paid hacks in state legislatures. Given the apparent trends in public attitudes, I can see only one outcome here - less unionization in the public sector and an increase in the number of states with right-to-work laws.

This is not a case of the government forcing an employee to take whatever is offered. The employee is free to go work someplace else if they don't like the offer. Neither should the government or the taxpayers be forced to pay the employees whatever they demand.

Similar to marriage, it takes the agreement of both parties to the agreement. No need to make it more complicated than it should be.