Revolution in Wisconsin

[Dreadnaught]

I'm with him on this one. Also he wasn't referring to intimidation, well at least not in the form of "Nice house, it'd be a real shame if something were to happen to it."

It's batshit insane to keep referring to boycotts, a commonplace, legitimate, non-violent means of applying economic pressure, typically for political ends, as a criminally violent endeavor. If you can't acknowledge that it's not "thuggery" then you can't form a rationale conclusion about anything. The very best you're aspiring to is being the stopped clock that's right twice a day, approaching accuracy by accident.

Fuzzy is raising a petty and semantic argument. What isn't intimidating about what these public employees have done so far?

For the 20th time, I think it's fine if private sector workers want to do this. When a bunch of government workers come by and talk about boycotting your business if you don't support them getting a pay raise, it fundamentally undermines the relationship between people and their government.

Why this is such a difficult concept to grasp is beyond me.

[LittleFuzzy]

Fuzzy is raising a petty and semantic argument. What isn't intimidating about what these public employees have done so far?

For the 20th time, I think it's fine if private sector workers want to do this. When a bunch of government workers come by and talk about boycotting your business if you don't support them getting a pay raise, it fundamentally undermines the relationship between people and their government.

Why does someone's employer change how we should view boycotts? I know your rationale for public employees not being allowed to strike, but a boycott's a boycott. All you've done to elucidate that is your obviously wrong position that any public employment action is criminally violent.

As I've said before, your view that it's thuggery is more than sufficient to demonstrate that you have absolutely no rational basis for any of your thoughts on public employees or their organization.

Why this is such a difficult concept to grasp is beyond me

Why is it so difficult for you to acknowledge that this hasn't been criminally violent? Why do you have to invent this fantasy that political advocacy is tantamount to being mugged?

[Dreadnaught]

I never said it was violent. I said it was thuggery. I'm not alone in using that word, but we can play the semantics game forever. If you had actually asked why I object to this particular type of boycot (instead of arguing the nature of the word "thug" and "bully") I would have elaborated.

Just as I don't think public workers should be able to strike, I don't think they should be able to organize into state-recognized interest groups. I object to the pressure public unions can exert on a variety of fronts, and one of those is the subtle implication of the delivery of government services.

When a group of government workers band together and threaten the interests of people who don't support their agenda, it makes day-to-day neutral and efficient governance very difficult. If policemen are going door-to-door demanding people publicly support their payscale, those who refuse (or accept) have every reason to believe they will get different treatment from police. That's not acceptable.

[LittleFuzzy]

I never said it was violent. I said it was thuggery. I'm not alone in using that word, but we can play the semantics game forever. If you had actually asked why I object to this particular type of boycot (instead of arguing the nature of the word "thug" and "bully") I would have elaborated.

Just as I don't think public workers should be able to strike, I don't think they should be able to organize into state-recognized interest groups. I object to the pressure public unions can exert on a variety of fronts, and one of those is the subtle implication of the delivery of government services.

When a group of government workers band together and threaten the interests of people who don't support their agenda, it makes day-to-day neutral and efficient governance very difficult. If policemen are going door-to-door demanding people publicly support their payscale, those who refuse (or accept) have every reason to believe they will get different treatment from police. That's not acceptable.

Because you still refuse to demonstrate any hint that you recognize reality, thuggery IS violence. If you say something is thuggery, you're saying it is violent. If you're just echoing a Wall Street opinion piece word for word *without attribution for several days* well that just demonstrates that in addition to denying reality, you can't take a moment to consider its accuracy or lack thereof.

There is absolutely nothing about being state-recognized that affects their boycott. Boycotts are typically generated by someone calling on the public in general. As for the implication that the boycott has an implication on the delivery of government services, do you have anything to suggest this affects standing government contracts? Because that's the only mechanism by which you can even imagine this involving government services. And we both know the answer to that question, don't we? Not that you won't insist on some "subtle" effect. After all, you just said that having a policeman tell you he doesn't like your politics means he's just going to sit and watch as you get mugged.

[Illusions]

So wait, let me get this straight, in Dreadnaught's America, since my dad is a postal worker, and thus a government employee, he is not allowed to not shop or stop shopping somewhere, if he disagrees with how they do business, and it would be thuggery, or committing violent or brutal acts in the manner of thugs, to tell the business why he was doing so, and what they could do to placate his issues?


...really? You're completely serious about this? And you think that this is a sane and rational position to take? Or is it magically fine because its just him, and would suddenly transform into thuggery if it was more people who agreed with him? Is there some invisible cutoff point, for instance, 99 is okay, but 100 is thuggery? Perhaps you could discuss this with Kathaksung...

[Khendraja'aro]

So wait, let me get this straight, in Dreadnaught's America, since my dad is a postal worker, and thus a government employee, he is not allowed to not shop or stop shopping somewhere, if he disagrees with how they do business, and it would be thuggery, or committing violent or brutal acts in the manner of thugs, to tell the business why he was doing so, and what they could do to placate his issues?


...really? You're completely serious about this? And you think that this is a sane and rational position to take? Or is it magically fine because its just him, and would suddenly transform into thuggery if it was more people who agreed with him? Is there some invisible cutoff point, for instance, 99 is okay, but 100 is thuggery? Perhaps you could discuss this with Kathaksung...

No, no, no. He's allowed to stop shopping somewhere. But he's not allowed to talk with his coworkers about that because, God forbid, that might give them ideas. Dread wants the workforce to be fragmented in order for them to be as powerless as possible. He recognizes that a unified group of people has more power than a group of people with the same idea but going about it individually - and that's a threat to him. Because individuals rarely can enact broad policy changes. Groups of people can.

However, if we were to ban unions for that reason, we'd also have to ban lobbyists, political parties and ultimately abolish the government totally and utterly. Because every one of those is the representant of a group of people.

I am a member of or vote for a political party because I think they represent my will best (or at least have the most in common) and because I know that my individual single voice has next to no power in politics. The will of a group of organized people will always be stronger than the will of a group of unorganized people.
It's the same with unions - only that their scope is smaller than that of a political party.

What Dread wants amounts to direct Democracy. That might have work in ancient Athens with it's mere voter population of a few thousands. It won't work in countries with a voting population in the hundreds of millions.

[GGT]

From the WSJ:

Having lost their fight in the legislature, Wisconsin unions are now getting out the steel pipes for those who don't step lively to their cause. A letter we've seen that was sent to businesses in southeastern Wisconsin shows that Big Labor's latest strategy is to threaten small businesses with boycotts if they don't publicly declare their support for government union monopoly power.

Steel pipes? Monopoly power?

[Flixy]

I never said it was violent. I said it was thuggery. I'm not alone in using that word, but we can play the semantics game forever. If you had actually asked why I object to this particular type of boycot (instead of arguing the nature of the word "thug" and "bully") I would have elaborated.

Just as I don't think public workers should be able to strike, I don't think they should be able to organize into state-recognized interest groups. I object to the pressure public unions can exert on a variety of fronts, and one of those is the subtle implication of the delivery of government services.

When a group of government workers band together and threaten the interests of people who don't support their agenda, it makes day-to-day neutral and efficient governance very difficult. If policemen are going door-to-door demanding people publicly support their payscale, those who refuse (or accept) have every reason to believe they will get different treatment from police. That's not acceptable.

If your cops really treat people differently because of their politics, and respond differently to calls made by them, there is more wrong with your police department than 'union thuggery'.

Besides, in another thread it was said that there should not be any anti discrimination laws, people should just boycott businesses. But government workers are exempt? That doesn't leave a very effective boycott. Which reminds me, police also protect racists and other extreme groups when they have protests, even though they disagree (strongly) with their politics. But they would not protect a business they boycott due to union rights? While they protect the KKK? Yeah right.

[LittleFuzzy]

From the WSJ:



Steel pipes? Monopoly power?

Monopoly power actually makes some sense, since IIRC, Wisconsin is like California. You have to pay dues into a union whether you're a member or not, and government workers are all in "union shops", so there's only one organization which you can get to represent you. The public employee unions have a monopoly on that labor.

[GGT]

If your cops really treat people differently because of their politics, and respond differently to calls made by them, there is more wrong with your police department than 'union thuggery'.

Besides, in another thread it was said that there should not be any anti discrimination laws, people should just boycott businesses. But government workers are exempt? That doesn't leave a very effective boycott. Which reminds me, police also protect racists and other extreme groups when they have protests, even though they disagree (strongly) with their politics. But they would not protect a business they boycott due to union rights? While they protect the KKK? Yeah right.

You're right, Flixy. I'm not sure why Dread mentioned cops in this anti-public union sentiment (that seems to have spread like a virus ) There might be some of that in the Wild West or southern small towns, at least based on anecdotes people here have posted about, more like who gets ticketed for speeding or let off with a warning. But not in major urban hubs like NYC for things like responding to burglaries or violent crime.

I wonder if he meant state sanitation workers (who pick up garbage or plow snow) might show preference to certain areas or shop owners? After this winter it looked like that could be the case, where entire neighborhoods were stilled snowed in after two days. That would still mean more entrenched problems that go beyond unions.

[Steely Glint]

Fuzzy is raising a petty and semantic argument.

It may be semantic, but it isn't petty. When a word is chosen for it's negative connotations rather than actual descriptive accuracy, indeed when it is chosen because of it's negative connotations inspite of a lack of descriptive accuracy , then that person is trying to make a point without going to the trouble of proving it and this is worth pointing out.

[GGT]

Monopoly power actually makes some sense, since IIRC, Wisconsin is like California. You have to pay dues into a union whether you're a member or not, and government workers are all in "union shops", so there's only one organization which you can get to represent you. The public employee unions have a monopoly on that labor.

Wouldn't that be a monopoly by the union only on its members, though?

It's not any union membership 'monopoly of representation' that would be a problem if cops or fire fighters don't respond (because they don't like that bank's or Quik Trip's politics), but corruption.

[RandBlade]

From the WSJ:

Steel pipes? Monopoly power?

You're right to roll your eyes, the correct word is monopsony.

[Dreadnaught]

Everyone is very radically misinterpreting my views on this. As Fuzzy pointed out, government workers have monopoly power. When they unionize, they exploit that monopoly power. They also politicize the delivery of their services. The Western world has seen an extreme of that in some Western European countries that have been riddled by civil service strikes for decades.

The US hasn't had too many government strikes and our federal government has basically resisted collective bargaining for labor costs for decades. But our state government unions have been able to win enormous, budget-busting concessions by exerting a huge amount of political influence that is unique to their particular role in society. That kind of influence can spill-over outside the confines of government until we have government employees using their state-funded union dues to have a very deep and (I believe) inappropriate impact on our society.

I suspect at his core Fuzzy agrees with this given the state he lives in. And I think this is unique to unionized government workers. I don't think the same situation exists with private-sector unions or any other political group.

To address a few of the specifics:

1) Fuzzy: There's nothing subtle about allowing policemen to knock on your door as policemen (uniformed or not) and ask for political support. That crosses a very big line, yet it's also completely legal. I'm not sure why you don't see a problem with day-today government being politicized.

2) Illusions- The postal service isn't exactly a government agency.

3) Flixy- There would be something very wrong with our police. But I prefer to remove the mere temptation and possibility of politicizing our government workers.

4) Khend- As I've stated numerous times, I don't object to organized boycotts or legalized unions. My objection is the public sector becoming a massive political actor. The strikes that you had two months ago were limited, but I don't want them to become at all commonplace here.

5) Steely- We can agree to disagree about a word forever. But Fuzzy was going apoplectic over a semantic issue that not really central to this. I'm not the first person to use the word "thug" and "bully" interchangeably, and I won't be the last.

[Tontoe]

1) Fuzzy: There's nothing subtle about allowing policemen to knock on your door as policemen (uniformed or not) and ask for political support. That crosses a very big line, yet it's also completely legal. I'm not sure why you don't see a problem with day-today government being politicized.

Well, I can't speak for the state employees, but for federal employees, this kind of behavior is explicitly banned by the Hatch Act. If that's what you're worried about, it seems to me that the more efficient way to go about it is to ban this kind of activity rather than deny a whole group of workers the right to strike. If you really want to go down that route, than I think it would behoove you to suggest alternative means of hearing grievances rather than painting public service as a staff of jackboot thugs.

[Dreadnaught]

Most aren't stupid enough to do this in uniform, but when your local cop comes to your door and asks for political support the impact really is the same. And when entire chunks of the state workforce are mobilized for elections (most get that day as a holiday compared to the private sector), it's a very potent political force.

But state workers don't have a "right" to strike unless their legislators grant them such a privilege. They didn't have that right for the first 25 years after the Wagner Act and the world didn't end for state employees.

But the more time I spent in the public sector, the more I'm fascinated by this persistent idea that state employees somehow have grievances that must be addressed using collective bargaining (beyond normal civil service rules). That somehow the 85% of private sector workers who aren't unionized somehow have no ability to pursue their interests, grievances and advancement.

[LittleFuzzy]

Everyone is very radically misinterpreting my views on this. As Fuzzy pointed out, government workers have monopoly power. When they unionize, they exploit that monopoly power. They also politicize the delivery of their services. The Western world has seen an extreme of that in some Western European countries that have been riddled by civil service strikes for decades.

I did not say that and I do not think that. I said that as best I could recall, the legislative environment Wisconsin has created, vis a vis labor organization, allowed public sector unions to either be monopolies, or at least behave in a monopolistic manner. Workers don't have monopoly power or anything that even resembles it. Thinking the workers do just ties into what I've been saying about what your insistence on "thuggery" tells us about you. That you have no connection to reality.

1) Fuzzy: There's nothing subtle about allowing policemen to knock on your door as policemen (uniformed or not) and ask for political support. That crosses a very big line, yet it's also completely legal. I'm not sure why you don't see a problem with day-today government being politicized.

It crosses no line, there's no reason it shouldn't be legal, day-to-day government is and always has been politicized *that's exactly what the general meaning of politics refers to* and those policemen at your door aren't making it any more or less politicized.

[Tontoe]

Uniform or no, it's not allowed to use your position as a federal worker to solicite political support. If a police officer, as you suggest, it explicitly or implicitly suggests their services are contingent on political support, report them. Also, could you provide a source on the election=state holiday? Wiki has only eight listed, but it's a)Wikipedia and b) a cruddy article to boot.

I never said that grievances must be address using collective bargaining, that's all you. Furthermore, my experiences suggest that many public (again talking federal here) employees do resolve their issues on an individual basis. I do believe collective bargaining is a useful tool and restricting the right for a group of people to organize is not something to be done lightly. Especially when there are alternatives to address the issue which you seem hellbent on ignoring.

[Khendraja'aro]

Especially when it would be highly immoral to restrict some people's rights to collectively bargain through unions. Again, Policemen and Firemen. Do you really want to let those people go on strike? Can you imagine the amount of chaos a strike of the police or the fire department would cause? I mean, it already is a problem if they only do what we Germans call "Dienst nach Vorschrift" - doing their work exactly as it is laid out in the contract and not one iota more.

Thus you'll have to let them unionize. It's the only feasible way for those public workers to bargain with their employer. And no, Dread, individuals bargaining don't have the same power a group of people have. Banning unions would be an incredibly lopsided move benefitting only the employer.

It's the same over here with teachers - teachers in Germany are not allowed to go on strike. How exactly are they supposed to adress (and maybe oppose) broad policy changes from politicians if they're not allowed to organize?

[Nessus]

Everyone is very radically misinterpreting my views

This seems to be a recurring dilemma, doesn't it

[Dreadnaught]

It crosses no line, there's no reason it shouldn't be legal, day-to-day government is and always has been politicized *that's exactly what the general meaning of politics refers to* and those policemen at your door aren't making it any more or less politicized.

I disagree with your idea that we should accept our civil servants as a major political force, with their political activities subsidized by the government. It's basically a state-within-a-state and not what we should aspire to.

Uniform or no, it's not allowed to use your position as a federal worker to solicite political support. If a police officer, as you suggest, it explicitly or implicitly suggests their services are contingent on political support, report them. Also, could you provide a source on the election=state holiday? Wiki has only eight listed, but it's a)Wikipedia and b) a cruddy article to boot.

I never said that grievances must be address using collective bargaining, that's all you. Furthermore, my experiences suggest that many public (again talking federal here) employees do resolve their issues on an individual basis. I do believe collective bargaining is a useful tool and restricting the right for a group of people to organize is not something to be done lightly. Especially when there are alternatives to address the issue which you seem hellbent on ignoring.

Especially when it would be highly immoral to restrict some people's rights to collectively bargain through unions. Again, Policemen and Firemen. Do you really want to let those people go on strike? Can you imagine the amount of chaos a strike of the police or the fire department would cause? I mean, it already is a problem if they only do what we Germans call "Dienst nach Vorschrift" - doing their work exactly as it is laid out in the contract and not one iota more.

Thus you'll have to let them unionize. It's the only feasible way for those public workers to bargain with their employer. And no, Dread, individuals bargaining don't have the same power a group of people have. Banning unions would be an incredibly lopsided move benefitting only the employer.

It's the same over here with teachers - teachers in Germany are not allowed to go on strike. How exactly are they supposed to adress (and maybe oppose) broad policy changes from politicians if they're not allowed to organize?

Tontoe, I've made it very clear that I'm focusing on state workers. The federal government has not permitted its employees to bargain over wages and benefits to date. Think there's a reason for that?

But my [other] problem, Khend, with allowing collective bargaining is it allows government workers to elect their own bosses. Their wages "grievances" are grievances against the taxpayer. I don't disagree unions are powerful, but I believe they are too powerful if they are allowed to operate within the apparatus of the state.

Oddly enough, it sounds like you both would agree with some of the main proposals in Wisconsin. The Wisconsin law restrictions state union bargaining to only cover non-wage/benefit issues such as work rules, holidays, etc. It also requires state employees to opt-in to their unions by making them re-certify each year as well as bill their members directly (instead of relying on the state to automatically plop people in the union and deduct the dues from paychecks). In many respects, it's a very progressive compromise.

[Illusions]

2) Illusions- The postal service isn't exactly a government agency.

Could you pretend like it is so you can answer the questions?

[LittleFuzzy]

I disagree with your idea that we should accept our civil servants as a major political force, with their political activities subsidized by the government. It's basically a state-within-a-state and not what we should aspire to.

I happen to agree with not wanting such political activities subsidized by the state. You might recall that I didn't have strong objections to Walker's requested legislation. That's not the subject at hand, however. You have absolutely failed at providing ANY indication on how a boycott is a misuse of funds, power, or position. All you've given us is "I don' like it" and as near as any of us can tell, you object to public workers being able to do anything at all. Can't speak in public, can't march, can't boycott, can't organize, can't strike, can't bargain, can't blow their noses, can't speak in private, can't look both ways before crossing the street. . .

[Enoch the Red]

...can't look both ways before crossing the street. . .

Wouldn't this help with the deficit?

[Dreadnaught]

Absolutely not true. I object to government workers engaging in political activity (including boycotts) as government workers, IE organized unions that conduct political campaigns for paycheck increases.

If government workers want to go door-to-door to campaign on an issue as part of a political party, non-profit, etc, super. But when they do so as organized government workers, they are acting as a potentially adversarial group within the government whose professionalism can be compromised by their campaigning.

[GGT]

I think Dread just said he's opposed to incumbent legislators using their government positions to campaign. Or to organize by political party within the government, to caucus or filibuster, or engage in political activity.

[LittleFuzzy]

Absolutely not true. I object to government workers engaging in political activity (including boycotts) as government workers, IE organized unions that conduct political campaigns for paycheck increases.

If government workers want to go door-to-door to campaign on an issue as part of a political party, non-profit, etc, super. But when they do so as organized government workers, they are acting as a potentially adversarial group within the government whose professionalism can be compromised by their campaigning.

They're not card-punching computers, ergo their professional is suspect. Gotcha. Guess what? That's just so much tough shit for you. The collective-bargaining thing is something you can get away with curtailing because at a functional level you're not curtailing it, you're just saying, as one side of the negotiations, that you're not going to treat with the other in that fashion. Technically the government is restraining itself, not the workers or their organization. All the rest of this is just so much crap. Freedom of speech, of assembly, of association. Them "possibly compromising their professionalism" isn't a problem. Your desire to trample on basic liberties is. Forbidding people from going door to door, i.e. talking with their neigbors *because I assure you, legally there will be no difference* We're not talking about some threat to vital state interests allowing the temporary use of the state's regulatory and police authority to order strikers back to work here, Dread. There is no vital state interest to protect and there's no actionable element or justiciable target to order around even if there was.

Seriously Dread, tell me. How the hell do you propose to "ban" them from boycotting? How do you intend to prove that they're actually engaging in one *as opposed to talking about it* and supposing you could, how do you propose to prove whether they're complying or not? You are aware that to seek a legal remedy, said remedy has to be demonstrable, right?

[Dreadnaught]

I have no desire to trample basic liberties. Forming a public-sector union and organizing to go door-to-door is what I oppose, not government employees taking political positions and participating in the political process.

I don't want to ban "them" from boycotting, I want it illegal for there to be an organized "them" in the fashion that has ruined the balance sheets and politics of your state and mine. Failing that, the Wisconsin law seems to be a great compromise.

[GGT]

Dread, it seems you're blaming the wrong group for ruining state balance sheets.

[LittleFuzzy]

I have no desire to trample basic liberties. Forming a public-sector union and organizing to go door-to-door is what I oppose, not government employees taking political positions and participating in the political process.

I don't want to ban "them" from boycotting, I want it illegal for there to be an organized "them" in the fashion that has ruined the balance sheets and politics of your state and mine. Failing that, the Wisconsin law seems to be a great compromise.

You want to prohibit them from assembling together, speaking with each other, associating with each other. Yes, I just said that. The Constitution says "screw you." You can't do it, Dread. You can't keep them from organizing.