Right Winger spouts out against labor

[WeirdWilly]

Who said the following?"All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress."



Was it:


A. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker
B. Rush Limbaugh
C. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt

The answer, of course, is C.

[ArlJim78]

Gov Walker correctly points out to the union goons that in Wisconsin they still have some collective bargaining rights under the new law, while federal workers do not have collective bargaining.

Why aren't they amassing in Washington and picketing the White House and congress? I mean if these are rights which every worker is entitled to, why aren't they taking over the capital with a sit-in?

[boxcar]

Gov Walker correctly points out to the union goons that in Wisconsin they still have some collective bargaining rights under the new law, while federal workers do not have collective bargaining.

Why aren't they amassing in Washington and picketing the White House and congress? I mean if these are rights which every worker is entitled to, why aren't they taking over the capital with a sit-in?

Stay tuned. Mosty is researching an answer to your question at the usual lib talking points' sites. He'll tell us why the U.S. government has, for all these many decades, been depriving federal workers of their inalienable rights to collective bargaining. I can hardly wait. :jump: :jump:

Boxcar

[rastajenk]

It's probably going to be Preston Bush's fault, you know, known Nazi ("Hitler's first act was to crush the unions!") collaborator and puppetmaster for decades' worth of policy. It's always Bush's fault. :jump:

[Spiderman]

Stay tuned. Mosty is researching an answer to your question at the usual lib talking points' sites. He'll tell us why the U.S. government has, for all these many decades, been depriving federal workers of their inalienable rights to collective bargaining. I can hardly wait. :jump: :jump:

Boxcar

National security is probably the reason why federal workers cannot strike.

[bigmack]

National security is probably the reason why federal workers cannot strike.
What?

[mostpost]

Who said the following?"All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress."



Was it:


A. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker
B. Rush Limbaugh
C. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt

The answer, of course, is C.
People keep bringing up this FDR quote without understanding it. Note the three words I have bolded. "As usually understood" means that federal employees, due to the vital nature of their jobs, cannot hold an entire nation hostage by striking. But striking is only a small part of collective bargaining. Striking is a tactic which should be employed only as a last resort. Negotiations, education, informational picketing, mediation, arbitration and binding arbitration ought to precede any strike.

FDR made the statement above in a letter to the President of a federal employees union (I forget the name-it's in one of these threads.) The occasion of the letter was the decision by the union to renounce the strike as a bargaining tactic. Roosevelt was not opposed to collective bargaining by public employees. He was opposed to strikes by public employees. He was OK with all the other bargaining tactics available to a public union.

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78
Gov Walker correctly points out to the union goons that in Wisconsin they still have some collective bargaining rights under the new law, while federal workers do not have collective bargaining.

Why aren't they amassing in Washington and picketing the White House and congress? I mean if these are rights which every worker is entitled to, why aren't they taking over the capital with a sit-in?


Stay tuned. Mosty is researching an answer to your question at the usual lib talking points' sites. He'll tell us why the U.S. government has, for all these many decades, been depriving federal workers of their inalienable rights to collective bargaining. I can hardly wait.

Boxcar

Walker's statement is partly true. Air Traffic Controllers, postal employees and a few other groups in the Federal Government do have collective bargaining rights on most issues including pay, benefits, and working conditions. Most federal employees have collective bargaining rights on working conditions, but not on pay or benefits. All federal employees are forbidden by law to strike. The law also forbids management to lock out federal employees.

The difference between Madison and Washington DC is that in Madison they are taking away rights the workers already had. Walker is using the "if Johnny's mother let him jump off a cliff, should I let you jump off a cliff?" argument.

[mostpost]

What?
What part of "National Security" don't you understand?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78



Stay tuned. Mosty is researching an answer to your question at the usual lib talking points' sites. He'll tell us why the U.S. government has, for all these many decades, been depriving federal workers of their inalienable rights to collective bargaining. I can hardly wait.

Boxcar

Walker's statement is partly true. Air Traffic Controllers, postal employees and a few other groups in the Federal Government do have collective bargaining rights on most issues including pay, benefits, and working conditions. Most federal employees have collective bargaining rights on working conditions, but not on pay or benefits. All federal employees are forbidden by law to strike. The law also forbids management to lock out federal employees.

The difference between Madison and Washington DC is that in Madison they are taking away rights the workers already had. Walker is using the "if Johnny's mother let him jump off a cliff, should I let you jump off a cliff?" argument.

Government-granted rights are at best pseudo-legitimate, transitory, mutable rights. Conversely, inalienable rights are genuine, permanent and immutable in nature because these rights originate with the Creator.

Boxcar

[hcap]

Government-granted rights are at best pseudo-legitimate, transitory, mutable rights. Conversely, inalienable rights are genuine, permanent and immutable in nature because these rights originate with the Creator.
With all due respect to the FFs, and until we cam get the Creator into court, we will have to make do with man's version.

[bigmack]

Walker's statement is partly true.
Walker's statement is entirely true as he said:
" most federal employees do not have collective bargaining for benefits or pay."
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/mar/02/scott-walker/wisconsin-gov-scott-walker-says-most-federal-emplo/

[mostpost]

Walker's statement is entirely true as he said:
" most federal employees do not have collective bargaining for benefits or pay."
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/mar/02/scott-walker/wisconsin-gov-scott-walker-says-most-federal-emplo/
Walker's statement as presented by Arljim78 is mostly true. Do you sell those nits you pick or do you have a collection?

[bigmack]

Walker's statement as presented by Arljim78 is mostly true. Do you sell those nits you pick or do you have a collection?
I know how you like to deal with minutia and split hairs and walk away feeling like a hero. Would be nice to see you do it with consistency as you in other areas walk by burning buildings and can't figure out why it's so warm.

[singletax]

Is Gov. Walker going after the corporations when he is done with the unions? I doubt it. Corporations are granted privileges just like labor. Corporations are given limited liability. Why the rancor over labor unions receiving privileges but not corporations?

In actuality labor and capital are on the same side. Both are being played and this forum is just one example. Both are played by the landlord. There are three factors of production: Land, Labor, and Capital. Everybody spends quite a bit of time arguing labor vs capital and vice versa.

Hell, the con man Karl Marx based his nonsense on labor vs capital.

However, the 600 lb gorilla in the ring is ignored. The Land factor. There are around 110 million households in the USA sitting on about 5 trillion dollars of land value. When you add in all the urban/suburb/rural non-household land value it is trillions more, much more.

None of this value was directly the result of the landlords. It is derived primarily from the community when you pay taxes for roads, bridges, jails, police, schools, etc. This rental value should be recaptured prior to taxation on productive human effort.

What is interesting is the founders of capitalism, the French Physiocrats, Adam Smith, etc. thought a ground rent was the best way to raise revenue, not bleeding the economy like we do in present day America.

[ArlJim78]

Is Gov. Walker going after the corporations when he is done with the unions? I doubt it. Corporations are granted privileges just like labor. Corporations are given limited liability. Why the rancor over labor unions receiving privileges but not corporations?
He's trying to balance his budget, the cost of the union benefits are the primary problem he faces, so I think its only logical to look to cut where the costs are out of line.

You wonder if he is going to go after corporate privileges next. my question to you is why would he? how exactly would altering limited liability help to balance the budget?

[cj's dad]

Walker's statement as presented by Arljim78 is mostly true. Do you sell those nits you pick or do you have a collection?

So statements that are mostly true are NITS ? Spin away Mostie.

[singletax]

He's trying to balance his budget, the cost of the union benefits are the primary problem he faces, so I think its only logical to look to cut where the costs are out of line.

You wonder if he is going to go after corporate privileges next. my question to you is why would he? how exactly would altering limited liability help to balance the budget?
Union benefits are not the primary problem he faces. There were union benefits in previous years budgets. Do they contribute to the overall problem? Yes, but ending unions period does not end the problem nor go a long way to ending it.

States that are right to work are in the same situation, some even worse then collective bargaining states.

Ending corporations would have the same impact, very little.

The problem Gov Walker has along with the rest of this country is our governments punish productive economic activity in the form of taxes. The Repubs favor wage and sales taxes and the Dems favor business and high income taxes. Both are wrong. Both tax what is good in society.

[ArlJim78]

Union benefits are not the primary problem he faces. There were union benefits in previous years budgets. Do they contribute to the overall problem? Yes, but ending unions period does not end the problem nor go a long way to ending it.

States that are right to work are in the same situation, some even worse then collective bargaining states.

Ending corporations would have the same impact, very little.

The problem Gov Walker has along with the rest of this country is our governments punish productive economic activity in the form of taxes. The Repubs favor wage and sales taxes and the Dems favor business and high income taxes. Both are wrong. Both tax what is good in society.
Will I think you're mistaken about the issue of public employee benefits, which are sinking cities and states under a pile of debt.
I think there is a much bigger problem in this country than the particular taxation system being used, and that is the way we've become addicted to and dependent on the federal government, and the fact that we have allowed the feds to spend and print money with reckless abandon.

[HUSKER55]

Went out for dinner the other night. There was a flier about a group trying to make labor contracts go on the ballot.

I feel this is a tinder box about to go. tempers are all over the place.