So you're saying it's unconstitutional to ban public sector unions?
So you're saying it's unconstitutional to ban public sector unions?
It's unconstitutional to ban political advocacy and that's where all the harms you're decrying come from. That's the source of your objection to public unions compared to private unions. And you're certainly not going to find an appellate court who will uphold an attempt to keep people from organizing, outside a few exceptions which certainly don't stretch to include most public-sector employment.Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
You're being circular. Do you think it's unconstitutional to ban public sector unions?
Separately, I'm curious: do you think prohibitions against "open shops" are unconstitutional?
I'm not being in the least bit circular. I am, however, attempting to side-step what I suspect is going to turn into you attempting a semantic "gotcha" in response to the issue over your continuing insistence that "thuggery" means any and all forms of pressure.
For your separate question, define prohibition. As I explained in reference to collective bargaining a few posts ago, what we say and what is actually going on aren't quite the same thing.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
I'm not trying to put you in a semantic "gotcha". I don't do that, you do.
My question is whether you think it's unconstitutional to require someone to join a union in order to get a particular job. In other words, if states that don't allow what we often call "right to work" conditions are potentially violating the constitution. It's an interesting case because it's not quite about freedom of assembly as much as it's about forced assembly.
I think banning them would be against our constitution, I think there is a right to assembly... Which would also apply to government workers.
A) I don't know, and B) a major reason I don't know is because you answered the question, but didn't really answer the question. I'm not sure if you can, I don't think you understand how to frame it.My question is whether you think it's unconstitutional to require someone to join a union in order to get a particular job. In other words, if states that don't allow what we often call "right to work" conditions are potentially violating the constitution. It's an interesting case because it's not quite about freedom of assembly as much as it's about forced assembly.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
New York's constitution isn't the same as other states. That makes it hard to "frame" the principle, but Flixy seemed to hit the nail on the head.
It has absolutely nothing to do with anything you're thinking, thanks for playing.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Dread asked about the constitutionality. States have constitutions in addition to our US constitution. Thanks for your presumptions.
But both Dread and I are talking about the US constitution, not any maintained by the states, and more specifically in the context of prohibiting "open shops" which is something New York doesn't do as far as I'm aware, further invalidating your erroneous and confused attempt to bring up their state constitution. Which, by the by, is not sufficiently different to affect this discussion even if it had been relevant.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Then go for the gusto, Fuzzy. We await your legal scholar.
My question is whether compelling someone to join a union to get a job is constitutional, IE is forced assembly unconstitutional.
But we also have a nice scandal brewing on here. We may find that some cops were funneling "gifts" through the local police union to clear up parking tickets. My point here is not that this is an overall indictment of the police union, but that corruption exists and organizations acting as a buffer between the state and its employees can become involved in a variety of troubling behavior. Fuzzy says that state governments are always politicized, but I think we should aim for a higher standard.
Up to 40 Bronx cops eyed in grand jury ticket-fix probe - bribery, larceny charges possible
BY BOB KAPPSTATTER AND ROCCO PARASCANDOLA
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS
Saturday, April 9th 2011, 4:00 AM
A grand jury probe of an alleged Bronx ticket-fixing scheme focuses on as many as 40 cops, including delegates from the city's largest police union, sources told the Daily News.
More than two dozen cops are being eyed for making summonses disappear in exchange for gifts - a felony - sources said.
At least 10 others are being investigated for lesser crimes, including obstructing governmental administration. These cops are suspected of losing tickets that they had "taken care of," the source said.
"Guys are being asked what do they know about cops getting gifts or asking for gifts," according to one source.
"They're talking about indictments for larceny. They're talking about indictments for bribery. ... It's not going to be pretty."
At least one high-ranking cop has been called to testify.
A sergeant and other cops who are not delegates of the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association are also under investigation, the sources said.
Officials from the NYPD, the PBA and the Bronx district attorney's office declined comment, but it appears prosecutors are turning up the heat.
A PBA official on Wednesday got an unexpected house call - an assistant district attorney and an NYPD Internal Affairs investigator trying to get him to turn informant, sources said.
Internal Affairs investigators pulled summons records from all 12 Bronx precincts in September.
The Bronx investigation began with an Internal Affairs probe into a delegate suspected of having ties to a drug dealer. During that investigation, the officer, who is on modified duty, was heard on a wire asking a PBA delegate to fix a summons, sources said.
That officer is suspected of taking cash in exchange for fixing tickets.
For years, it has been common practice for cops to extend a professional courtesy to an officer whose relative or close friend got a ticket.
Last June, the NYPD installed a new system that allows each summons to be tracked electronically, making it tough to get rid of once it is written.
The district attorney's probe covers August 2009 through last June.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_c..._charges_.html
That'll depend on who is engaging in the "compulsion" and just how they're doing it.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
IE having my paycheck garnished and being forced to join a union as a condition of accepting a job.
I have to pay for my uniforms for my retail job. Wearing the uniform is a condition of having the job. If forced assembly is unconstitutional then so is forced speech.
I also had to sign a bunch of contracts in regards to a bunch of policies they have, which is a condition of having the job. Are you going to argue that that is unconstitutional as well?
Its not that I agree with these things, its just that I want to see if your argument lacks bias.
. . .
Erm, you don't see the difference of having to fork out $50 to get a job and being forced to give part of your paycheck to a union every single month? FYI, I have to about that much to the union here every month, and I never joined it and am still forced to give up the money.
Hope is the denial of reality
Am I not supposed to wash my uniform(s) or buy new ones when the old ones wear out? Besides that, if its unconstitutional at $50 per month, it should be unconstitutional at $50 per year or whatever. Unless there is some case where you can point out that something being unconstitutional or not is based on the magnitude of the action...
Do you enjoy the benefits that the union provides your job? Like better salary, vacation days, etc.? Say an alternate universe existed where you could keep your $50 per month, but instead you'd lose those benefits. Would you go there?FYI, I have to about that much to the union here every month, and I never joined it and am still forced to give up the money.
. . .
So you see nothing wrong being forced to pay a group against your will as a condition of employment? A group that I might note is highly politicized and takes clear positions on political issues (and manages to channel money to political candidates from a certain party)?
You're assuming that I wouldn't get those benefits if the union hadn't existed. Secondly, the union hasn't negotiated anything that actually benefits me in the last collective agreement. More importantly, why does it matter if the union benefits me if I don't want to represent me? Would you be ok with being forced to give part of your paycheck to Apple if it decided that it wanted to represent you and could make some claim to improving your financial situation?Do you enjoy the benefits that the union provides your job? Like better salary, vacation days, etc.? Say an alternate universe existed where you could keep your $50 per month, but instead you'd lose those benefits. Would you go there?
Hope is the denial of reality
We all have to pay for clothes. I don't think that's a valid issue.
But when it comes to the conditions for the job, obviously it depends on the conditions themselves. Having to agree to certain terms to get a job isn't what I'm questioning. It's being forced to join a union -- which is a political entity -- and have your paycheck garnished for that union.
The Wisconsin legislation stops mandatory collection of union dues from state employees, so the unions have to actually get their members to pay (and prove their value). It also makes the unions have to compete to re-certify each year. Those measures are pretty clearly on the side of increasing choices and decreasing compulsion.
That's the end result, it addresses neither the who nor the process, the two things I identified as key determinants.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Besides, (surely Fuzzy will correct me if I'm wrong on the numbers) only 12% of ALL jobs involve joining a union. Public and/or private.
Those numbers vary greatly by profession; in some, you don't have much of a choice. Are you suggesting people choose a different profession in order to not be coerced into joining a union or paying union dues?
Hope is the denial of reality
If that was directed to me --- in education there are some choices. If you don't want to be "forced" to join the NEA in order to have a teaching job, you can apply as an independent contractor. If you don't like that, then you have some influence as a member of the union. Union members have voting rights and can change that system from within. If they choose.
Can you elaborate?
I think he's trying to say that he'd like to know what, constitutionally, is the difference between having to pay something for one thing or another when you get a job, e.g. what is constitutionally the difference between paying for uniforms or for a union.
I don't know your constitution (or can be arsed to read it), but the only fundamental difference I see is that in one of the cases, money you are forced to spend is used for political goals. Then again, you also earn money for your company and they can spend it on whatever political goal too, whether you like it or not.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
So you'd have no problem if Apple decided that it wanted to represent all employees and demanded that they pay it fees?
Hope is the denial of reality
Since when are the union and the employer identical?
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Who is doing this requiring? A private company deciding to implement a closed shop is not engaging in any unconstitutional action because the Constitution's about state action, not private action. It may or may not run afoul of legislation, but not the Constitution. Different levels of government authority are also governed in somewhat different ways.
For process, by what exact mechanisms are people being compelled to join the union? And how were those mechanisms put into place? I pointed out earlier how Wisconsin could approach collective bargaining without actually touching unions because what it was doing was constraining itself, not labor. Saying "I will not engage in collective bargaining with these people" is very, very different from saying "these people are forbidden from engaging in collective bargaining." Even if they have the same results. Asking about the Constitution is asking about law. Process, the way things are done, matters. A great deal.
Last edited by LittleFuzzy; 04-12-2011 at 05:35 PM.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Alright, so here seems to be a new disconnect between yourself and other people when it comes to debating, mainly that you base arguments around how you define words, and not how everyone else does. This makes it incredibly difficult to care about continuing the debate with you. For instance (I'll go sentence by sentence to illustrate):
Okay, this makes plenty of sense.
Alright, so you're not questioning/debating that an employee must meet/agree to certain terms in order to get a job.Having to agree to certain terms to get a job isn't what I'm questioning.
Uhh, wouldn't joining the union as a requirement to holding a certain job, be having to agree to a term in order to get a job?It's being forced to join a union -- which is a political entity -- and have your paycheck garnished for that union.
Can you hold the job without joining the union? No? Then its a condition or term of holding that job. Which you are questioning, even though you said you weren't. Why is this so difficult? You're questioning why being required to be in a union is a term/condition of employment for certain jobs. It can be debated like any other term or condition. It is not special or different because you think it is. I tire of this crap from Lewk, in regards to "freedom", "liberals", and a slew of other words he feels can be used to mean whatever he wants, I'm certainly not going to deal with it from a second person. I especially don't want to have to inquire as to how words and ideas are defined in the Dreadnaught Dictionary in order to discuss things with one person, simply because of a slanted viewpoint affecting language usage.
. . .
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote