• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Eager to demonstrate a positive message, public union compares opposition to ISIS

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
66,533
Reaction score
33,901
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
In a sane world, this would result in this woman stepping down from her position, and a serious legitimacy challenge for the organization moving forward.


With the city facing the threat of a teachers strike, Chicago Teachers Union President Karen Lewis focused attention on Gov. Bruce Rauner on Wednesday in an incendiary speech that likened the Republican governor's actions to terrorism.
"Rauner is the new ISIS recruit," Lewis said during an address at a packed City Club of Chicago luncheon, using a term that refers to the Islamic State terrorist group.

"Yes, I said it, and I'll say it again," Lewis continued. "Bruce Rauner is a liar. And, you know, I've been reading in the news lately all about these ISIS recruits popping up all over the place — has Homeland Security checked this man out yet? Because the things he's doing look like acts of terror on poor and working-class people."....

Lewis' City Club speech came four days after the union rejected contract recommendations of an independent arbitrator, opening the door to a strike as soon as next month. Lewis said the city is heading toward another teachers strike, but that no decision has been made on when a walkout might take place. The union has been in negotiations with the school board for well over a year to replace a contract that expired June 30.

Claypool, in a letter to Lewis on Wednesday, asked the union to agree to "final and binding interest arbitration in lieu of a strike" and wrote that the district is "at a loss as to how a strike would solve or even advance a solution to the considerable challenges that CPS faces.

"In our view a strike whether in May or in August or in September would be devastating to our students and parents," Claypool wrote. Claypool also noted that arbitration "has been used in Chicago for our police and fire contracts for decades."...

Public Employees have no right to strike without consequence. If you are a teacher who refuses to teach, well, then we shouldn't pay you to do it. CTU has gone full nuts.
 

haymarket

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
120,954
Reaction score
28,528
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
In the final analysis, the only true weapon a working person has with their employer is the control of their own labor.
 

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
18,233
Reaction score
15,860
Location
veni, vidi, volo - now back in NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
In the final analysis, the only true weapon a working person has with their employer is the control of their own labor.

And, in the final analysis, the only true weapon an employer has with their employee is the control of the employee's paycheck - in this instance, public employee's employers are the people, and if the employees (teachers in this instance) refuse to perform the work (in this instance, teach), then the employer should have every right to not pay them and find someone that will work, just as cpwill stated.

There are numerous laws and regulations that restrict the power the employer has over the nature of the employer-employee relationship, which gives the employee a certain level of power over the employer, a power that is backed by pain of law. The employer has no such power, other than the power of the purse, and the power to replace the worker. When you take those two away from the employer, as unions wish to do, then the employer has NO power what-so-ever. In the instance of the OP story, that powerless employer is the tax payer. As a tax payer, I refuse to allow my right to choose whom I pay to serve me, vitiated by public employee unions.

If you as an employee are not happy with the current employer-employee relationship, and after voicing that unhappiness there is no change or compromise by the employer, then you have one power over the employer that no one can take away from you... you can leave their employment and find a new job - the power to choose is yours. The same power that I as a tax payer demand that I should be allowed to exercise as well.

That's only fair.
 

haymarket

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
120,954
Reaction score
28,528
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
And, in the final analysis, the only true weapon an employer has with their employee is the control of the employee's paycheck - in this instance, public employee's employers are the people, and if the employees (teachers in this instance) refuse to perform the work (in this instance, teach), then the employer should have every right to not pay them and find someone that will work, just as cpwill stated.

There are numerous laws and regulations that restrict the power the employer has over the nature of the employer-employee relationship, which gives the employee a certain level of power over the employer, a power that is backed by pain of law. The employer has no such power, other than the power of the purse, and the power to replace the worker. When you take those two away from the employer, as unions wish to do, then the employer has NO power what-so-ever. In the instance of the OP story, that powerless employer is the tax payer. As a tax payer, I refuse to allow my right to choose whom I pay to serve me, vitiated by public employee unions.

If you as an employee are not happy with the current employer-employee relationship, and after voicing that unhappiness there is no change or compromise by the employer, then you have one power over the employer that no one can take away from you... you can leave their employment and find a new job - the power to choose is yours. The same power that I as a tax payer demand that I should be allowed to exercise as well.

That's only fair.

Actually - it is not fair. And like in much of debate - definition of terms is crucial. If fair is an even playing surface where both sides are of equal power - then its clearly not fair to give one side the ultimate power while the other has none of the same.

I was a public school teacher for 33 years. I gave much of my adult life to my career and in turn to my employer. And they provided me with a decent living in return. That job belonged as much to me as it did to the Board of Education and the community and I had every right to withhold my services in times of a labor stoppage and at the same time to work to stop scabs from taking my job and my career away from me. To say that an employer has the right to simply fire employees during a labor stoppage gives them the all purpose trump card that wins every time. And that is the opposite of fair.
 

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
18,233
Reaction score
15,860
Location
veni, vidi, volo - now back in NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Actually - it is not fair. And like in much of debate - definition of terms is crucial. If fair is an even playing surface where both sides are of equal power - then its clearly not fair to give one side the ultimate power while the other has none of the same.

I was a public school teacher for 33 years. I gave much of my adult life to my career and in turn to my employer. And they provided me with a decent living in return. That job belonged as much to me as it did to the Board of Education and the community and I had every right to withhold my services in times of a labor stoppage and at the same time to work to stop scabs from taking my job and my career away from me. To say that an employer has the right to simply fire employees during a labor stoppage gives them the all purpose trump card that wins every time. And that is the opposite of fair.

The failure in your entire argument, is that there should be an even playing field. The employer is the one taking the financial risk, not the employee. If the employee looses their job, they can get another one. If the employer looses their company, they loose their investment, which in the case of most medium to small businesses includes the owners house, savings, kids college fund, and so on.

So no, it is not, nor should it be a level playing field. The term fair must include the risk the employer is taking, that the employee is not. Meaning that the employee must take a risk as well, being that their job and income is not completely in their control, but rather in the control of the employer. The employee is still free to choose who they work for, and at what rate of pay they will accept to do so.

In the instance of the public employee, there is no logical reason why the tax payer should accept having a major political campaign contributor being legally allowed to finance only the politicians that agree to pay the employees what they demand. That is corruption at its bare element. It's a kick-back and bribery - an otherwise illegal quid pro quo. Under any other circumstances, it would be prosecuted as a felony, but since its a union doing it under the ruling of Citizens United, it's legal.
 

haymarket

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
120,954
Reaction score
28,528
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The failure in your entire argument, is that there should be an even playing field. The employer is the one taking the financial risk, not the employee. If the employee looses their job, they can get another one. If the employer looses their company, they loose their investment, which in the case of most medium to small businesses includes the owners house, savings, kids college fund, and so on..

I tried to define your word - FAIR. Do you have a different definition to fit the situation we are discussing?

Yes it should be an equal playing field. The employee is also taking a giant risk - their career , their livelihood and that of their family. If we take your callous comment that the worker can always get another job, let flip that script and say with equal callousness that the employer can simply start another company or find work as an employee.

So no, it is not, nor should it be a level playing field. The term fair must include the risk the employer is taking, that the employee is not. Meaning that the employee must take a risk as well, being that their job and income is not completely in their control, but rather in the control of the employer. The employee is still free to choose who they work for, and at what rate of pay they will accept to do so.

That premise has been shown to be false as the employee also takes giant risks signing on to an employer.

In the instance of the public employee, there is no logical reason why the tax payer should accept having a major political campaign contributor being legally allowed to finance only the politicians that agree to pay the employees what they demand. That is corruption at its bare element. It's a kick-back and bribery - an otherwise illegal quid pro quo. Under any other circumstances, it would be prosecuted as a felony, but since its a union doing it under the ruling of Citizens United, it's legal.

WOAH!!! You just made a giant leap of faith there without any evidence to support your claim and the idea that it is buying something which otherwise would not be awarded.

Do you want to take aways peoples political rights? Or do you favor only union members or public employees should lose their political rights?
 
Top Bottom