Should the country outlaw collective barganing for government employees?

Collective barganing for government employees is driving cities/fed govt bankrupt. Asked by Rock 12 months ago Similar questions: country outlaw collective barganing government employees Politics & Law > Issues.

Similar questions: country outlaw collective barganing government employees.

And the Republicans said they would not bring back slavery.

You sure have a hair trigger on calling people racists. Of course we Republicans couldn't possibility be as noble and pure are you are. By the way, how did you get slavery into the conversation?

Rock 12 months ago .

Sorry. I did not intend it that way. We had slaves long before it was a race thing.

The Greeks had slaves. Paul had a slave attend him. I just thought having to work with no rights was much like being a slave.

The FDA had a good union. We got a lot of benefits other government workers did not get. That is where it came from.

Why not let workers discuss benefits as a group? .

As for being noble and pure, you ought to know the truth. I am a cranky older guy. Nobel and pure was years ago.

Certainly before I went to Vietnam.

Just saying I am not noble and / or pure. What do you expect, anyway? We are people.

I have no reason to think so. But I do not know why a person who works for the government should not have rights. Strikes in essential services maybe restricted.

I go that far. But why not collective barganing? .

Doubtful. TO say nothing of the political fallout. After all, there are signed contracts, which are legal documents.

I have the strong feeling that the government can't outlaw legal contracts that were signed voluntarily between both parties. If that were the case - that government could unilaterally break contracts by legal fiat - then we have basically decided that no laws are valid because contracts cannot be trusted. We move from a market based economy to a complete anarchical society because no one's word can be trusted.

Now, if the governments want to negotiate with government employee unions when the signed contracts expire - that's a different story entirely. Sure, the government can play hardball, just like the corporations have done.No problem with that. But no government can simply decide to outlaw contracts that were legally signed.

Frankly, Rock, I am shocked that you even float this idea - contracts are sacred in a rational society.

Frankly, Rock, I am shocked that you even float this idea - contracts are sacred in a rational society. "Fair collective bargaining is one thing, what we have now is a different thing. How did government salaries and benefits get so out of hand?

Do you think there was some corruption going on? I do. The fact that these government salaries and benefits are unsustainable is one thing, the fact that state governments and municipalities are going bankrupt is another.

What good are contracts when one side goes bankrupt? Rock 12 months ago .

Too bad. I sure hope you aren't in a sales-related profession.No way mister, that's not the America I grew up in. You sign a contract and you keep your word.

You don't get to dump a contract because your negotiators suck.

As for DM's answer - I agree with him. If states and counties go bankrupt, then they can renegotiate under the bankruptcy laws. But that's the only way that's legal.

You can't just tear up a contract you don't like.

Government employee unions and others like the UAW don't bargan in good faith. The union leaders use bribes to get the other side to give them whatever they want. In the case of the government, the congress will vote government employees anything they want because, heck, it's not their money.

There is no incentive for them to hold down salaries. As a result, they have gotten too high. You can't depend on government officials to do the right thing.

Rock 12 months ago .

Rock, you're really reaching for excuses to support your position. And it seems like the further you reach, the sillier the arguments become. No one forced the government (employers) to agree to contract terms.

Contracts are signed between parties that agree on the terms of the contract. No one twisted anyone's arm here - you had two groups at a table that shook hands. Now the side that you support wants to disavow their agreement.

That's intellectually dishonest. We're seeing the same issue this year in the NFL. The unions want more money and the owners don't want to pay.

Will the owners have the guts to lock out the players? (My guess is "no"). But no one is telling the owners that they are forced to pay players more - it is an economic (and business) decision, pure and simple.

Substitute "government employees" for "football players" and it's the same argument. No one has a gun to anyone's head.

No one forced the government (employers) to agree to contract terms. Contracts are signed between parties that agree on the terms of the contract. No one twisted anyone's arm here - you had two groups at a table that shook hands.

Now the side that you support wants to disavow their agreement. That's intellectually dishonest. "Wrong,Union officials pay bribe money to the right people and contracts get signed.

Nobody gets anything for nothing in Washington. Same for the UAW. Rock 12 months ago .

Oh please, you're off the deep end. Your blind hatred for unions has caused you to become paranoid. And that paranoia has led you to the conclusion that you can break any laws you want.

Get back to reality, Rock. You can froth at the mouth all you want, and get more and more off the original topic, but the reality is that a signed contract is a signed contract. If you don't like unions, then start another movement and see how far you get.

Signed contracts have to be in good faith. Rock 12 months ago .

And you say your for a free and democratic society,HA. How about ALL elected officials regadless of party work for minimum wage and for the real good of the Nation. But we couldn't have that could we?

I'm not setting salaries, I'm just giving taxpayers a fair shake. Rock 12 months ago .

Then how about Politicians make a fair wage and not these sky high salaries ,that would give the tax payer a fair shake to. It seems to always be the goverment worker,the factory worker thats running the country into the ground. Not the politician,the CEO,we need those people making stupid out of sight earnings,again defending the wealthy and blaming everything on the little guy or the other side.

How about all politicians take a 25% pay deduction ,and no pay increases for any elected official untill the country is out of debt,now that would give tax payers a fair shake.

There would be a free-for-all of PATRONAGE.. Before there were civil service laws, government employees were hired and fired at will.. Whenever somebody's juiced in dimwit relative came of age..

That would be outlawing the First Amendment freedom of association. The employer will have to learn how to say "No" to many as well as it says "No" to one. No shortcuts.

You can associate with whomever you like but each person has their own contract. Rock 12 months ago .

Sounds like you are calling for bigger government, and more regulation. So, NO.

I'll calling for smaller government and an end to the insane regulation there is now. Rock 12 months ago .

The Constitution grants free speech and freedom to assemble - but that is the extent to which it protects federal employees in collective bargaining. Perhaps you'd like the Constitution changed to deny federal employees those rights? This is a problem I have with so much of the GOP "problem solving.

"First, they wrongly identify the problem. Second, they come up with "solutions" that are counter to the Constitution. Third, they deny any costs associated with their unlawful solutions.

So we're left with a bunch of bitchers and moaners who simply muddy the efforts of those who are trying to govern. They have earned the name "Party of No. " No knowledge.

No common sense.No solutions. It's just noise, distraction, and obstruction, parroted long and loud by their minions. Do you ever even stop to think about what you are asking for?"Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

" .

First, the Democrats accuse the GOP of what they know they are guilty of. Democrats still only have one solution to everything: Tax and spend. Rock 12 months ago .

Weird then, that taxes have gone down under Obama. At least half your motto is wrong. Oh well - when in doubt mouth a slogan.

Whether it's true or not is moot, right? .

If you don't know about the tax cuts of the past two years, you're not keeping up on the news. Go. Read up on it.

Then we'll talk. Here are a couple of hints:"Tax provisions account for more than a third of the $787 billion economic stimulus package, giving millions of taxpayers some sort of tax relief from the first piece of legislation produced under the Obama administration. The law's cornerstone individual tax break, Making Work Pay, could net each worker as much as $400."

Read more:bankrate.com/finance/taxes/stimulus-pays... here:pro.nuco.com/PublishingImages/2009%20Sti... you're caught up on how the first stimulus, in 2009, provided one of the largest tax relief programs in US history, we'll talk about the bill signed last month - and how that creates one of the second largest tax relief programs in US history. Get to work. Come back and tell me what you've learned.

Turn off FOX Noise, and find out what is really going on. Is it a deal? Now, that was a nice segue from your question (when you wish to change the subject, just toss out a rhetorical non sequitur), but you completely failed to stay on topic, which was collective bargaining.

Or was that something else that you just didn't know anything about? Aspx#ixzz1AAZO1or5.

(assuming you get paid). Did you see the hoops you have to jump through to get anything? I believe I read in one of those links that only about 25% of the stimulus money has been given out.

How could it have much of an effect? Now, I started with:"Should the country outlaw collective bargaining for government employees?"You countered with:"Sounds like you are calling for bigger government, and more regulation. "I replied with:"I'll calling for smaller government and an end to the insane regulation there is now.

"You countered with:"So you want to preempt state rights?"and worked you way to the GOP having:"No knowledge. No common sense. No solutions."and followed it with a personal attack on me.

I think this is the point where the so called discussion got off track and then later you claim I went off track. Has anyone ever mentioned that you regularly complain about other people doing what you do?"The faults we find in others are the ones we fear in ourselves. " Rock 12 months ago .

The faults we find in others are the ones we fear in ourselves. "When in doubt, sling another cliche. At least your consistent.

The discussion was never ON TRACK, dude. Your question was inane and ridiculous. "Should the country outlaw collective bargaining..." Define your terms.By country I can only take it to mean federal government - which would preempt state rights and create bigger federal government (oh NOES - overreach!

). To "outlaw" something, by very definition, means to create new laws. Bigger government.

More regulation. If you can't keep up with that, there is no discussion to go off track, because you're just babbling cluelessly. Enjoy your weekend.

4 days is way too much time to spend on this nonsense. Get outside. Get some air!

.

I didn't say federal government. I want it to be a grass roots decision which it is in some states. So how does it get to be a dumb question.

Rock 12 months ago .

It's already a grass roots decision. The states decide. I guess if that is what you were trying to say, here's how *I* would have phrased the question:"Some states have already banned collective bargaining by the public sector; should more of them follow suit?"Not only would it have meant more what you are trying to say (I think), but it's objective.

It's not just another "Rock Rant" of Obama badLiberals badUnions badCollective bargaining badThose aren't telling us anything we don't already know about your ideology.

No, but when some states, counties and cities file for bankruptcy the old collective bargaining contracts go away and new ones will be hammered out. I doubt they will be as lucrative as the present ones. IMO, government employees should be paid wages and benefits that are similar to what people in the private sector get paid for the same job.

ElBandito. I agree that contracts should be honored as well. I am still trying to figure out how BHO was able to have the UAW leap from over Preferred Stockholders to give them benefits that up until then had already gone to the first in line for assets, the Preferred stockholders.

It would be nice if everyone was honest but I don't believe they are. Rock 12 months ago .

Public employees getting a little too uppity for you?no. Collective bargaining allows the working class to protect their interests. To outlaw it is to take away their rights.

Public employees aren't the working class anymore. Rock 12 months ago .

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the public EMPLOYEES still are; and many collective bargaining unit employees, both public sector AND private sector took either pay cuts or pay freezes. Unlike your heroes in the upper class.

The left will never ever never give up class warfare. Rock 12 months ago .

Just like the right will never give up trying to subjugate the working class.

Democrats still only have one solution to everything: Tax and spend. Better than tax-and-pass-to-your-cronies.

If you want to count the general public as cronies...

Then you are saying NO the Democrats don't have cronies. Don't you think that is a little naive? Rock 12 months ago .

Not as naive as believing that if you continue to give the money mongers free reign, they will abruply change their stripes and money will start trickling down to the working class.

You want to force people to do what you think is right. Good luck with that one. Rock 12 months ago .

If Bill Gates had your attitude he would have never invented Windows. Rock 12 months ago .

You obviously have no comprehension of what my attitude is. If Bill Gates did NOT have my attitude, he wouldn't be giving away a huge percentage of his profits every year to those less fortunate then he is.

The secret of the industrialist is to produce the best goods possible; at the lowest price possible; while paying the highest wages possible. " Henry Ford .

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.