I keep reading from various sources about the trick the dems are pulling in their respective state houses because they know they can't stop the vote to limit union power from happening so they have effectivly "walked out"
In one source the vote I beilieve in Illinois is to stop people from being forced to pay union dues even when they themselves are not nor do they want to be union members.
I don't understand this as I have grown up in the south and union is a 4 letter word 'round here. If you don't want to be a part of the union then why should you be forced to pay?
Sorry I derailed my own thread, My question is should the legislators be held criminally liabel for this kind of underhanded and illegal action. My opinion is YES! How dare they hold up the work of the state government just because they know they are going to lose.
Discussion is what were here for folks but please lets keep it very civil because this is a very hot topic.
I dare say opening with 'sore losers' kind of defeats any 'attempt' at keeping it civil.
Some 'sore losers' try to obstruct while others try to repeal. shrug
People should be held accountable for their actions, but the problem lies in when to enforce the law, and how to do it consistently.
I dare say opening with 'sore losers' kind of defeats any 'attempt' at keeping it civil.
Some 'sore losers' try to obstruct while others try to repeal. shrug
You could be right CF but that was what they were acting like to me so I didn't think that one through very well.
I have never heard of any other political party doing any thing like this to intentionally stop a state government from functioning.
In one source the vote I beilieve in Illinois is to stop people from being forced to pay union dues even when they themselves are not nor do they want to be union members.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. The events are taking place in Wisconsin, not Illinois (although the missing Democratic senators are [were?] in Chicago). Are you referring to another event, or confusing the two states?
From what I've read, the issue does not appear to be one of a "closed shop" (wherein all non-supervisory employees must belong to a union) but curtailment of what matters are covered under collective bargaining and, more specifically, the employees' contributions to health insurance and pensions.
EDIT: Also, and I don't know the answer here, is the Democratic senators actions criminal? And by criminal I mean illegal as opposed to objectionable?
I am not up on my political history to be able to give you an example, but I bet there are plenty going all the way back to our founding fathers.
There was a show on the History channel not to long ago that made me smile. It was about during Washington's presidency Jefferson and Adams nearly came to blows over politics (specifically State's rights if I am remember this all correctly). It seems to me political discord is nothing new.
We just like to think the other side is tearing this country apart.
In one source the vote I beilieve in Illinois is to stop people from being forced to pay union dues even when they themselves are not nor do they want to be union members.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. The events are taking place in Wisconsin, not Illinois (although the missing Democratic senators are [were?] in Chicago). Are you referring to another event, or confusing the two states?
From what I've read, the issue does not appear to be one of a "closed shop" (wherein all non-supervisory employees must belong to a union) but curtailment of what matters are covered under collective bargaining and, more specifically, the employees' contributions to health insurance and pensions.
Nope it's a diffrent event in illinois. I just went back and checked.
There the republicans are trying to stop folks from being forced to pay union dues and the dems except for two are no-shows. They need 67 total attendees in order to have a quarm but they only have 57 senators.
As far as a fillibuster, those can and have been over ridden useing roberts rules of order but to deliberatly not show up to deny the legislative process is well beyond the scope of rules of order. From my understanding.
In Wisconsin, the law is that they can send the cops to go round up absentee legislators and bring them back to make them be present for a vote. That's why the Democrats in Wisconsin had to leave the state.
I wondwer if theres a bounty?<-- just jokeing folks. but seriously I think they should be held accountable in some manner whether it be fines or forced attendance.
Nope it's a diffrent event in illinois. I just went back and checked.
No wonder I was confused, then. Any chance you have a link?
No wonder I was confused, then. Any chance you have a link?Nope it's a diffrent event in illinois. I just went back and checked.
I don't know how to link stuff I just check out the drudge report.
I don't know how to link stuff I just check out the drudge report.No wonder I was confused, then. Any chance you have a link?Nope it's a diffrent event in illinois. I just went back and checked.
Close enough. Thanks.
...
In one source the vote I beilieve in Illinois is to stop people from being forced to pay union dues even when they themselves are not nor do they want to be union members.
I don't understand this as I have grown up in the south and union is a 4 letter word 'round here. If you don't want to be a part of the union then why should you be forced to pay?
...
Well one theory on this part would depend on whether or not you gain the benefit (if any) of the collective bargaining unit. In other words, do you get the same contract the union negotiates or are you on your own. If you gain the same contract, then many areas with unions have what are called "fair share" rules. Since you get the contract, the union wants something to pay for the expense of negotiating that contract. From what I understand this is typically less then the standard dues and also means you are technically under no obligation to strike if the union does, but you do not get a vote in union matters.
<looks at new eyes, skitters away>
In one source the vote I beilieve in Illinois is to stop people from being forced to pay union dues even when they themselves are not nor do they want to be union members.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. The events are taking place in Wisconsin, not Illinois (although the missing Democratic senators are [were?] in Chicago). Are you referring to another event, or confusing the two states?
From what I've read, the issue does not appear to be one of a "closed shop" (wherein all non-supervisory employees must belong to a union) but curtailment of what matters are covered under collective bargaining and, more specifically, the employees' contributions to health insurance and pensions.
Nope it's a diffrent event in illinois. I just went back and checked.
There the republicans are trying to stop folks from being forced to pay union dues and the dems except for two are no-shows. They need 67 total attendees in order to have a quarm but they only have 57 senators.
As far as a fillibuster, those can and have been over ridden useing roberts rules of order but to deliberatly not show up to deny the legislative process is well beyond the scope of rules of order. From my understanding.
I actually don't have a problem with the WI Democratic legislators actions. I don't think there is anything unlawful about their actions. If there is they should be held accountable; I tend to think law makers should pay the maximum penalty for violating the law.
Even though this seems extreme I think they are using the only option the rules have left them. Some of them may consider collective bargaining a basic human right; if so then I don't think this is an unreasonable or unlawful tactic.
I'm fine with public employees having to share some financial pain, but stripping the unions of their collective bargain rights seems to infringe on a basic human right to me.
I actually don't have a problem with the WI Democratic legislators actions. I don't think there is anything unlawful about their actions. If there is they should be held accountable; I tend to think law makers should pay the maximum penalty for violating the law.
Even though this seems extreme I think they are using the only option the rules have left them. Some of them may consider collective bargaining a basic human right; if so then I don't think this is an unreasonable or unlawful tactic.
I'm fine with public employees having to share some financial pain, but stripping the unions of their collective bargain rights seems to infringe on a basic human right to me.
I'm torn. Maybe they're simply doing what the must in the context of the established system, but I have to question rules that allow the system to be shutdown so easily.
I'm fine with public employees having to share some financial pain, but stripping the unions of their collective bargain rights seems to infringe on a basic human right to me.
How is collective bargaining a "basic human right"? In other contexts we call it "monopoly" and make it illegal, but apparently if you're a government employee, threatening it is suddenly the equivalent to threatening your genocide...
I'm torn. Maybe they're simply doing what the must in the context of the established system, but I have to question rules that allow the system to be shutdown so easily.
When half your legislature has to evade capture and physically leave the territory in order to shut down the system, I wouldn't call it fragile.
I'd call it pretty darn close to treasonous, but from modern American politicians this should not be a surprise.
If I get that right, the dems left state to avoid a legal vote they would lose on a specific topic ? This is not a magic moment for democracy for sure. If no law speaks against such behaviour, it is technically not illegal, however.
That vote would have been about curtailing the rights and powers of unions, right? From what I´ve gathered from the US legal system, this should be taken to court, not be a matter of legislation. If somebody, like a company in this case, feels wronged by a union, it sounds like a civil matter to me. I do have a bad feeling about legislation curtailing unions rights, as the right to have a union was hard fought for. I see that unions have a wholly different background in the US, and have a reputation to be prone for being a haven for mobsters.
But still, unions normally use their influence not only to get the highest wages for their members, which is their foremost task, but also strive for the betterment of working conditions if they are worth their name. IMO, the right to unionize is an achievement of advanced democratic societies, and not something to be given up lightly. I concede that there is abuse according to what I hear from unions in the US, but you should not blame that on the idea of unions per se, but rather on inept and greedy union leaders.
Stefan
When half your legislature has to evade capture and physically leave the territory in order to shut down the system, I wouldn't call it fragile.
It is factually incorrect to say that half of the legislature is involved. Exaggeration does not strengthen your argument...
I'd call it pretty darn close to treasonous, but from modern American politicians this should not be a surprise.
...nor does hyperbole.
My issue with the whole thing is that the state and the union have a negotiated contract between them. Instead of trying to renegotiate the contract (and to be honest Walker would have been in a much better position if he had and the unions had turned him down), the governor has decided to change the contract and make it so the unions can't bargain for anything other then wages. On top of that he decided to announce it by saying if you don't like it we will turn the National Guard on you. Also this only applies to unions that didn't side with him during the election.
Out of curiosity, how does one make a union illegal? The right to freedom of assembly is in the constitution. So a bunch of people assemble, and they all happen to be, say, auto workers, and they ask the smoothest-talking member to speak for them to management. Of course, management can the refuse to talk to that guy, whereupon the people who are freely assembling can all decide whether they want to coordinate a strike. And then management is faced with the decision of firing them all and trying to hire replacements without undo impact to their business, or they can decide to maybe talk with the smoothie after all. Or they can propose some 3rd alternative. This is all very free and within the Constitution.
Now, actively REQUIRING union membership in order to be hired -- again, that's a union on business struggle. Management can say "go to hell, we'll hire who we want," and we're back to the above.
Personally, I fail to see where government can or should enter into the above at all.
When half your legislature has to evade capture and physically leave the territory in order to shut down the system, I wouldn't call it fragile.It is factually incorrect to say that half of the legislature is involved. Exaggeration does not strengthen your argument...
I'd call it pretty darn close to treasonous, but from modern American politicians this should not be a surprise....nor does hyperbole.
I see what you did there.
Out of curiosity, how does one make a union illegal? The right to freedom of assembly is in the constitution. So a bunch of people assemble, and they all happen to be, say, auto workers, and they ask the smoothest-talking member to speak for them to management. Of course, management can the refuse to talk to that guy, whereupon the people who are freely assembling can all decide whether they want to coordinate a strike. And then management is faced with the decision of firing them all and trying to hire replacements without undo impact to their business, or they can decide to maybe talk with the smoothie after all. Or they can propose some 3rd alternative. This is all very free and within the Constitution.
Now, actively REQUIRING union membership in order to be hired -- again, that's a union on business struggle. Management can say "go to hell, we'll hire who we want," and we're back to the above.
Personally, I fail to see where government can or should enter into the above at all.
At least in the WI situation it is the state employee's unions.
Avalon XQ: I believe that the Wisconsin teachers are organized into at least two different unions, so right away your comparison to a monopoly is unhinged. (I also doubt [but could be wrong] that they are closed shops, but this is based on speculation and personal experience in a different part of the country.)
Bugleyman: I think you're nitpicking. Yes, I know there's a lower house of the legislature, but the bill's before the Senate and 14 out of 33 have fled.
Stebehil: In Wisconsin, the legislation being blocked is the state's budget, so essentially the employer is demanding concessions or threatening a lockout. In this case, however, the government IS the employer. I wasn't able to find the Drudge Report referring to Illinois, so I don't know what Mr. Tindall is referring to. However, public employee unions are on the chopping block all over the country.
Also, and I've said this before, I think the influence of the mob in the American labor movement is vastly overstated, mostly for propagandistic reasons. Political differences aside (there are no mass-based social-democratic parties here), the unions in America aren't much different than the unions in Europe.
I'm fine with public employees having to share some financial pain, but stripping the unions of their collective bargain rights seems to infringe on a basic human right to me.How is collective bargaining a "basic human right"? In other contexts we call it "monopoly" and make it illegal, but apparently if you're a government employee, threatening it is suddenly the equivalent to threatening your genocide...
I believe freedom of association is a basic human right. I don't believe governments have the right to ban voluntary associations like unions or political parties or to restrict their free speech.
EDIT: I also don't believe that employers should be forced to bargain with unions either, and I oppose union membership being mandated by law for employment.
At least in the WI situation it is the state employee's unions.
It's a conflict of interest for lawmakers to negotiate directly with unions -- a 3rd party moderator should have been retained. I call foul on the State of Wisconson (not that they listen to me).
I believe freedom of association is a basic human right. I don't believe governments have the right to ban voluntary associations like unions or political parties or to restrict their free speech.
EDIT: I also don't believe that employers should be forced to bargain with unions either, and I oppose union membership being mandated by law for employment.
Yes, if government bans unions, they're infringing on freedom of assembly -- sticking their nose where it doesn't belong (and defying the Constitution as well). If the government requires union membership, they're also overstepping their authority and interfering in affairs concerning which they have no legitimate jurisdiction.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I'm troubled by the Wisconsin thing. It strikes me as one of those tactics that works, but opens a huge can of worms. As usual, like the filibuster, people are arguing one side or the other based on their team rather than considering the full implications of the policy/procedure. Also, I'm loathe to subscribe to a general liberal media bias (it's a simplistic view, and frequently used to dismiss legitimate debate/facts), but I suspect that if this were Tea Party backed legislators walking from a state chamber, the portrayal of that walk-out would be slightly different.
Because, here's the rub: it can happen again. If a legislative body can so easily be paralyzed because of tricks like this, it will happen again. And it is something of an abuse of quorum (though, that said, I see it happen at the corporate board level in similar situations - board members who are outvoted will not attend the meeting, thus denying quorum). The ability to so easily paralyze the legislative body is quite frightening and could be very destructive (particularly when it results in gestopo tactics, like arresting the legislators).
Having the police arrest them is very frightening and, again, is one of those things that I think people only support when it's against the "other" team. Somehow, I doubt the same people would be advocating arrest if these were republican lawmakers walking out over, say, increased access to abortion. Somehow, the hairs would be split differently (just as they were in the filibuster debates pre-08 and post-08). Hooray for hypocriscy.
In an ideal world, I think the correct answer is to not count individuals who are intentionally absent when determining quorum. Either that, or stripping them of their office if they don't attend the legislative session X times in a row. That's how a civilized democracy should operate, by firing the person who doesn't do their job, not arresting them. When you arrest them, that's called slavery.
Out of curiosity, how does one make a union illegal? The right to freedom of assembly is in the constitution. So a bunch of people assemble, and they all happen to be, say, auto workers, and they ask the smoothest-talking member to speak for them to management. Of course, management can the refuse to talk to that guy, whereupon the people who are freely assembling can all decide whether they want to coordinate a strike. And then management is faced with the decision of firing them all and trying to hire replacements without undo impact to their business, or they can decide to maybe talk with the smoothie after all. Or they can propose some 3rd alternative. This is all very free and within the Constitution.
Now, actively REQUIRING union membership in order to be hired -- again, that's a union on business struggle. Management can say "go to hell, we'll hire who we want," and we're back to the above.
Personally, I fail to see where government can or should enter into the above at all.
It may all seem pretty Constitutional, but it wasn't always so. The early union movement in America (roughly 1860s-1920s) was hit time and time again with a bevy of "criminal syndicalism" laws and, in the case of say railway employees, laws against interfering with interstate traffic.
In fact, it wasn't until 1934 (after a general strike of communist-led Teamsters in Minneapolis) that the National Labor Relations Act, which settled the issue of unions' legality nationwide, was enacted. This set up the whole machinery of the NLRB and the arbitration and mediation boards which may look like the legal courts, but aren't, and have different rules.
I am curious to know if there are any public-employee unions that are closed shops. I would imagine that if the employer is the government, the right to assembly would rule it out. On the other hand, since the NLRA rules over these matters, maybe that trumps the Constitution? I don't know.
Yes, if government bans unions, they're infringing on freedom of assembly -- sticking their nose where it doesn't belong (and defying the Constitution as well). If the government requires union membership, they're also overstepping their authority and interfering in affairs concerning which they have no legitimate jurisdiction.I believe freedom of association is a basic human right. I don't believe governments have the right to ban voluntary associations like unions or political parties or to restrict their free speech.
EDIT: I also don't believe that employers should be forced to bargain with unions either, and I oppose union membership being mandated by law for employment.
I'm in complete agreement.
If I recall correctly the Democrat state house representatives fled Texas in 2001 when the census results were going to re-draw the districts in the Republicans' favor. The governor also threatened to use police force to get the Democrats back. We might see that happen in North Carolina as well, since with the 2010 census and Republican win of the state house for the first time in a century.
But this "I'll take my ball and go home" attitude shows the true colors of the losing political party. So does "jumping" representatives that change political parties when a new majority takes control. The senator or congressman just doesn't want to have a smaller office.
I'm troubled by the Wisconsin thing. It strikes me as one of those tactics that works, but opens a huge can of worms. As usual, like the filibuster, people are arguing one side or the other based on their team rather than considering the full implications of the policy/procedure.
Because, here's the rub: it can happen again. If a legislative body can so easily be paralyzed because of tricks like this, it will happen again. And it is something of an abuse of quorum (though, that said, I see it happen at the corporate board level in similar situations - board members who are outvoted will not attend the meeting, thus denying quorum). The ability to so easily paralyze the legislative body is quite frightening and could be very destructive (particularly when it results in gestopo tactics, like arresting the legislators).
Not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing with anything you wrote, but I just wanted to point out that from what I've read/heard this tactic being employed by the Democratic senators can only work on budgetary matters (where they need a quorum) not in other forms of legislation (where they don't). I'm not a Wisconsin resident, however, and I don't have a source.
...The ability to so easily paralyze the legislative body is quite frightening and could be very destructive (particularly when it results in gestopo tactics, like arresting the legislators)...
I have to agree. Shutting down the government only fuels extremism.
Not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing with anything you wrote, but I just wanted to point out that from what I've read/heard this tactic being employed by the Democratic senators can only work on budgetary matters (where they need a quorum) not in other forms of legislation (where they don't). I'm not a Wisconsin resident, however, and I don't have a source.I'm troubled by the Wisconsin thing. It strikes me as one of those tactics that works, but opens a huge can of worms. As usual, like the filibuster, people are arguing one side or the other based on their team rather than considering the full implications of the policy/procedure.
Because, here's the rub: it can happen again. If a legislative body can so easily be paralyzed because of tricks like this, it will happen again. And it is something of an abuse of quorum (though, that said, I see it happen at the corporate board level in similar situations - board members who are outvoted will not attend the meeting, thus denying quorum). The ability to so easily paralyze the legislative body is quite frightening and could be very destructive (particularly when it results in gestopo tactics, like arresting the legislators).
FWIW, I've seen the same thing reported by several sources, but I also lack a citation.
In Wisconsin, the law is that they can send the cops to go round up absentee legislators and bring them back to make them be present for a vote. That's why the Democrats in Wisconsin had to leave the state.I wondwer if theres a bounty?<-- just jokeing folks. but seriously I think they should be held accountable in some manner whether it be fines or forced attendance.
Somebody call for the Dawg?
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing with anything you wrote, but I just wanted to point out that from what I've read/heard this tactic being employed by the Democratic senators can only work on budgetary matters (where they need a quorum) not in other forms of legislation (where they don't). I'm not a Wisconsin resident, however, and I don't have a source.
Thanks. I didn't realize that - I've found it very hard to follow the story in any sort of non-partisan way. I still don't support the tactic, and I'm still in favor of having a rational consequence to the use of the tactic. I think it's an abuse of the function of quorum, and I don't approve of abusing the rules to gain an advantage.
Out of curiosity, how does one make a union illegal? The right to freedom of assembly is in the constitution. So a bunch of people assemble, and they all happen to be, say, auto workers, and they ask the smoothest-talking member to speak for them to management. Of course, management can the refuse to talk to that guy, whereupon the people who are freely assembling can all decide whether they want to coordinate a strike. And then management is faced with the decision of firing them all and trying to hire replacements without undo impact to their business, or they can decide to maybe talk with the smoothie after all. Or they can propose some 3rd alternative. This is all very free and within the Constitution.
Now, actively REQUIRING union membership in order to be hired -- again, that's a union on business struggle. Management can say "go to hell, we'll hire who we want," and we're back to the above.
Personally, I fail to see where government can or should enter into the above at all.
It may all seem pretty Constitutional, but it wasn't always so. The early union movement in America (roughly 1860s-1920s) was hit time and time again with a bevy of "criminal syndicalism" laws and, in the case of say railway employees, laws against interfering with interstate traffic.
In fact, it wasn't until 1934 (after a general strike of communist-led Teamsters in Minneapolis) that the National Labor Relations Act, which settled the issue of unions' legality nationwide, was enacted. This set up the whole machinery of the NLRB and the arbitration and mediation boards which may look like the legal courts, but aren't, and have different rules.
I am curious to know if there are any public-employee unions that are closed shops. I would imagine that if the employer is the government, the right to assembly would rule it out. On the other hand, since the NLRA rules over these matters, maybe that trumps the Constitution? I don't know.
Not to pick nits, but I would argue that freedom of association was constitutional long before the NLRA and the NLRB, but SCOTUS history would tend to validate the way you put it.
Not to pick nits,...
I had a brief internal debate whether or not to write the sentence like this:
It may all seem pretty Constitutional but it wasn't always SEEN AS so.
I decided to go with what I wrote because I thought it emphasized that what "is" Constitutional can change and has, indeed, done so.
EDIT: Or, to put it another way, the right to assembly may have always been constitutional, but the right to organize a union hasn't always been considered part of the right to assembly.
I don't think they're outlawing teachers from being able to get together and organize -- I think they're just saying that the resulting organizations don't have the authority to form agreements on behalf of the state's teachers. Which is NOT a freedom of association issue and doesn't seem to violate basic human rights at all.
I don't think they're outlawing teachers from being able to get together and organize -- I think they're just saying that the resulting organizations don't have the authority to form agreements on behalf of the state's teachers.
I think this is accurate. Instead of this being a case of the government violating the right to assembly and outlawing unions, it is a case of the government acting like an employer and trying to break it's employees' union.
With that in mind, I think Sebastian's observation about quorums in private corporations is a pretty fitting analogy for what is going on in Wisconsin (you know, minus the 20,000 people demonstrating in corporate headquarters).
You know, before this thread I was trying to make a conscious effort to read up on roleplaying topics and stay out of the OTD forum.
Curse you, Mr. Tindall!
I don't think they're outlawing teachers from being able to get together and organize -- I think they're just saying that the resulting organizations don't have the authority to form agreements on behalf of the state's teachers. Which is NOT a freedom of association issue and doesn't seem to violate basic human rights at all.
Granted that freedom of association and freedom of expression are different issues, but I maintain that passing a law against collective bargaining seems an awful lot like restricting an organizations freedom of expression. I believe McCain Feingold was unconstitutional for the similar reasons.
On the other hand I believe the state has the right to choose not to bargain with the unions. Current law may require the state to engage in collective bargaining, and that may be what the legislature wants to change. For me that changes the issue. Others may consider that a distinction without a difference.
As to the criminalization of this behavior (scooting out of state so you don't have to vote). I wonder if the people these congressmen represent could start a petition to have them removed from office for failing in their duties.
