MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus:         Newsletters 
Sunday, December 28, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 31.0° F  A Few Clouds
Collapse Photo Bar

Let's Talk About Union Rights

Races for the Senate, U.S. House, etc. and other issues of national importance.

Re: Let's Talk About Union Rights

Postby Galoot » Thu May 31, 2012 4:19 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internatio ... ral_Rights

That International treaty only has a handful nations that haven't signed it. South Africa, Saudi Arabia, and the U.S. are the main ones.

of course, signing it might lead to such horrors as actual requirement that union rights be preserved, and national healthcare also might be implemented. Frightful, I know.

It was approved back in 1976 by the U.N., Carter signed it, but no Senate in the last 32 years has dared ratify it.
Galoot
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1458
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 1:10 pm

Re: Let's Talk About Union Rights

Postby Meade » Thu May 31, 2012 8:13 pm

Thanks, Galoot. I don't see anything in there that gives rights to unions. So it's only individuals who have rights, right? Also, I noticed this:
Article 8 recognises the right of workers to form or join trade unions and protects the right to strike. It allows these rights to be restricted for members of the armed forces, police, or government administrators. Several parties have placed reservations on this clause, allowing it to be interpreted in a manner consistent with their constitutions (China, Mexico), or extending the restriction of union rights to groups such as fire-fighters (Japan).[1]
Meade
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3341
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:26 pm

Re: Let's Talk About Union Rights

Postby jonnygothispen » Thu May 31, 2012 8:17 pm

Why should groups of people who are employers be allowed to organize to buy policies that keep wages low for employees and employees not have the right to organize to ask for better wages?
jonnygothispen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3229
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:53 pm

Re: Let's Talk About Union Rights

Postby DCB » Thu May 31, 2012 11:51 pm

Stebben84 wrote:If you don't think act 10 is just a stepping stone to abolishing unions then you're living with your head in the sand.


Hmm. Should I trust what Walker says? or the people he pals around with?

Scott Walker's Southern Strategy Aligns Him With 'Union Buster' Nikki Haley
Walker says that he does not plan at this point to promote the sort of “right to work” legislation that he once championed as a state legislator—and that his chief legislative allies are currently talking up. But he has not said he would veto a right-to-work law. And Walker has shown no qualms about campaigning side-by-side with the nation’s most ardent advocate of right-to-work laws.

Haley has gone out of her way in recent months to identify herself as the nation’s leading champion of right-to-work laws—and, arguably, it’s most prominent and militant critic of organized labor. She says: “Unions are not needed, wanted or welcome in South Carolina.”
DCB
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2800
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 5:08 pm

Re: Let's Talk About Union Rights

Postby Igor » Fri Jun 01, 2012 1:00 am

TheBookPolice wrote:
Francis Di Domizio wrote:Of course since joining a Chamber of Commerce is completely voluntary

So is joining a union.


That is true - but most union members don't even know that, and the unions have fought it every step of the way.
Igor
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1632
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2002 11:48 pm

Re: Let's Talk About Union Rights

Postby TheBookPolice » Fri Jun 01, 2012 8:37 am

Igor wrote:
TheBookPolice wrote:
Francis Di Domizio wrote:Of course since joining a Chamber of Commerce is completely voluntary

So is joining a union.

That is true - but most union members don't even know that, and the unions have fought it every step of the way.

You've polled them? I've worked for the Department of Corrections for 9 years, and another 2 for DHFS before that, and never once have I witnessed pressure to join.
TheBookPolice
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 8413
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 1:09 pm
Location: The mystical Far East

Re: Let's Talk About Union Rights

Postby Henry Vilas » Fri Jun 01, 2012 8:49 am

Igor wrote:
TheBookPolice wrote:
Francis Di Domizio wrote:Of course since joining a Chamber of Commerce is completely voluntary

So is joining a union.


That is true - but most union members don't even know that, and the unions have fought it every step of the way.

Bullshit. New hires are always told of their options and they have to sign up with the union if they want to join.
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 20286
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

Re: Let's Talk About Union Rights

Postby Francis Di Domizio » Fri Jun 01, 2012 9:18 am

Stebben84 wrote:
Francis Di Domizio wrote: Nothing in Act 10 stops a labor union from lobbying for better worker conditions or donating to friendly candidates, nor does it stop workers from joining a union and sending dues to said union.


If you don't think act 10 is just a stepping stone to abolishing unions then you're living with your head in the sand. Conservatives will do all they can to eliminate ALL collective bargaining rights will do what they can to eliminate ALL unions public and private.

Pick up a paper. Conservatives generally hate unions.


I absolutely think act 10 was a stepping stone towards abolishing unions in WI. I also think Walker is politically astute enough to know he isn't going to be able to make the leap to next step at this point. Though if the senate republicans manage to hold their majority (or gain ground in November) he might start thinking about it again (especially since he can't possibly face another recall this term).

In the mean time, nothing in Act 10 keeps unions from working with politicians the same as any other lobbying group.
Francis Di Domizio
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2692
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:11 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Re: Let's Talk About Union Rights

Postby Francis Di Domizio » Fri Jun 01, 2012 9:24 am

TheBookPolice wrote:
Francis Di Domizio wrote:Of course since joining a Chamber of Commerce is completely voluntary

So is joining a union.


Henry Vilas wrote:New hires are always told of their options and they have to sign up with the union if they want to join.



Correct me if I'm wrong (and I very well may be) but I was under the impression that non-union members had to pay a fee (to the unions) because they benefited from the same bargaining that union members did.

If I'm wrong, I stand corrected, but if not then it's not really completely voluntary.
Francis Di Domizio
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2692
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:11 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Re: Let's Talk About Union Rights

Postby Henry Vilas » Fri Jun 01, 2012 9:27 am

Conservatives want to keep unions out of the political process. At one time, the top ten entities which contributed outside money for political campaigns included seven business/corporate groups (which tend to support the GOP) and three union groups (which tend to support Dems). Two of those union groups represented public employees, the other respresented workers in the private sector. Destroying unions will dry up that money.
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 20286
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

Re: Let's Talk About Union Rights

Postby Henry Vilas » Fri Jun 01, 2012 9:32 am

Francis Di Domizio wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong (and I very well may be) but I was under the impression that non-union members had to pay a fee (to the unions) because they benefited from the same bargaining that union members did.

Those who decide not to join the union pay a "fair share" equal to the cost for bargaining for their wages, other benefits and working conditions, but cannot vote in union elections. They do not contribute anything for political lobbying (which union members do pay for).
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 20286
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

Re: Let's Talk About Union Rights

Postby Francis Di Domizio » Fri Jun 01, 2012 9:40 am

Henry Vilas wrote:
Francis Di Domizio wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong (and I very well may be) but I was under the impression that non-union members had to pay a fee (to the unions) because they benefited from the same bargaining that union members did.

Those who decide not to join the union pay a "fair share" equal to the cost for bargaining for their wages, other benefits and working conditions, but cannot vote in union elections. They do not contribute anything for political lobbying (which union members do pay for).


So non-union workers have to pay for bargaining, and work under the same contract as union members, but do not have to pay for political activities and cannot take part in union votes.

I think I'll stand by my earlier statement. Membership in a Chamber of Commerce is completely voluntary. Non-union members still have to work under the union contract and pay for union bargaining, so realistically a portion of it is not completely voluntary.
Francis Di Domizio
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2692
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:11 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Re: Let's Talk About Union Rights

Postby Henry Vilas » Fri Jun 01, 2012 9:54 am

Sounds like the argument from "right to work" supporters. States with "right to work" laws have destroyed unions, which lowers wages and benefits and worsens working conditions. Employers love that, but does Wisconsin really want to be like South Carolina?
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 20286
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

Re: Let's Talk About Union Rights

Postby Francis Di Domizio » Fri Jun 01, 2012 9:55 am

Henry Vilas wrote:Conservatives want to keep unions out of the political process.


Let's be honest here Henry, liberals would love to do the same to the large conservative donors too. It's not like the only one playing this game is the Republican party, they just seem to be doing it better(worse?) right now.

reversing Citizen United might help some, but limiting political campaign donations to only those who have the right to vote would ultimately be a more complete solution.
Francis Di Domizio
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2692
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:11 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Re: Let's Talk About Union Rights

Postby TheBookPolice » Fri Jun 01, 2012 9:58 am

I don't have kids, but my taxes pay for public schools because I benefit from an educated populace. I don't support war, but my taxes pay for the military because a defense force is part of the American framework.

Yes, it is technically accurate to say that it is involuntary to pay a reduced fee to the union even if an employee isn't a full-dues member, but that employee receives the benefits of that union's activity as part and parcel of employment with that agency. Employment with a union-representated state agency is fully voluntary; if one doesn't like the terms, one need not accept the job.

"Involuntary" is a word that, in this context, is meant to prejudice the listener against the union more than it is to convey the nature of the relationship in any sort of accurate sense.
Last edited by TheBookPolice on Fri Jun 01, 2012 10:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
TheBookPolice
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 8413
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 1:09 pm
Location: The mystical Far East

PreviousNext

Return to National Politics & Government

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Henry Vilas and 2 guests

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater


commentsViewedForum
  ISTHMUS FLICKR
Created with flickr badge.

Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar