Wisconsin Republicans vote to strip public worker collective bargaining rights withou

Ikari said:

I see everything that you are doing as clear as day. It's called reverse engineering an argument. I used to do the same thing in 5th grade. You want to say the unions are publically supported and thus can be properly interfered with; you have to make that connection. You've made a leap in logic to do so because you ignore the fact that people have EARNED the money, thus making the money their own, not governments. The government has public schools, which teach all our children. The government needs teachers to work in those schools so that they can teach all our children. The government hires teachers to teach in those schools which teach all our children. The government PAYS the teachers for THEIR WORK in those schools teaching all our children. The money the teachers get is no longer government money, it is now PRIVATE money. It has a new owner, and this is the step you purposefully and dishonestly skip over each and every time so that you can try to claim that the unions are supported via federal funding. Money changed hands, old owners became non-owners, previous non-owners became owners. This is the break down point of your logically flawed argument, in fact it is the actual logical flaw in your argument. At this point, it ceases to be taxpayer dollars and becomes private money held by an individual. An individual who agreed to contractual terms to join a union and thus is now obligated to pay the union. They agreed to those terms, we have right to contract and they exercised that right by agreeing to be in the union. The individual still made the choice. If they didn't want to be in that union, they didn't need to take that job. They made a choice.

Your argument fails on nearly every level possible and in the end is nothing more than anti-union propaganda.

Click to expand...

Conservative said:

Keep shifting the goalposts, this has nothing to do with property rights or individual property it all, it is about unions forcing people to pay for union membership from money which comes from the taxpayers of Wisconsin. You have already said that you supported what Walker did so why are you diverting to another topic?

Click to expand...

The Barbarian said:

Yes perhaps as you say.... it's childish, but that doesn't make it any less true, the bottom line is without taxpayer's money, those unions don't exist.

Click to expand...

j-mac said:

I tend to agree with the personal property argument, such as it is in here IF those public employees who work in a closed shop environment, get their pay, post tax, and have to physically write the check for their dues. Is that the case, or are the dues taken out line item like SS?


j-mac

Click to expand...

The new Wisconsin law that limits public workers' collective-bargaining rights delivers big blows to public-service unions in two other ways: It ends the system for automatically deducting union dues from workers' paychecks and requires the unions to be certified as the workers' representation each year.

Click to expand...

The Barbarian said:

Yes perhaps as you say.... it's childish, but that doesn't make it any less true, the bottom line is without taxpayer's money, those unions don't exist.

Click to expand...

theplaydrive said:

I didn't shift the goalposts. The reason you have no claim to public workers' money is because when the government pays them, that money becomes their property.

Click to expand...

theplaydrive said:

I didn't shift the goalposts. The reason you have no claim to public workers' money is because when the government pays them, that money becomes their property.

Also, I never once said I supported what Walker did. I have been one the most consistent people on this board for coming out against him. I would never say that.

Click to expand...

Ikari said:

The unions which serve public school teachers wouldn't exist without taxpayer money? Yes, that is true. Why? BECAUSE WITHOUT TAXPAYER MONEY THERE IS NO PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS!!!!!!!! Why, in the name of all that is logical, would a union exist to serve a clientele base which doesn't exist? It's not that they're "funded by taxpayer's money", it's that they happen to serve a base which is paid for their labor through tax payer money. If you didn't have public school teachers, yes you wouldn't have public school teacher unions. But what the hell sort of argument is that? Besides vapid and pointless, I mean.

Click to expand...

theplaydrive said:

I think it depends on the state. For Wisconsin it was automatic deduction until Walker's bill.



First Read - Wisconsin law curbs union dues, certification

Click to expand...

Conservative said:

What you are doing is shifting the goalposts and ignoring the content because you are blinded by an ideology. It has absolutely nothing to do with your work or your compensation but everything to do with forced union membership and forced payment of dues, dues which come from the salary you receive from the taxpayers. Apparently you have no problem being forced by the unions to pay dues out of the teacher's pay?

Click to expand...

theplaydrive said:

I think it depends on the state. For Wisconsin it was automatic deduction until Walker's bill.



First Read - Wisconsin law curbs union dues, certification

Click to expand...

Conservative said:

Didn't watch the video I see? Teacher's Union Explained!

Click to expand...

Gill said:

This, in my opinion, is one of the most significant parts of the bill. Union members will now have to write a check to pay their dues, rather than having it taken from their paycheck which tends to be forgotten.

Now they will see and realize how much the union costs them each year.

Click to expand...

theplaydrive said:

I think everyone understands that the salaries of public workers comes from the taxpayers (which public workers are themselves). People are taking issue with the fact that you think this gives other taxpayers a right to have an input on how public workers spend their money. By the same logic, anyone with a job has to answer to anyone that contributed to their salary.

When the state gives the money to the public worker, that money becomes the property of the public worker. Public workers exchange work for money, they don't exchange work + rights to determine where they spend their salary for money.

Click to expand...

Ikari said:

No, I don't have speakers on my work computer. But it doesn't matter as the Unions are not funded with taxpayer dollars.

Click to expand...

Ikari said:

What shifting the goalposts? I haven't shifted anything, this has been my argument from the get go. You are trying to dodge and avoid the logical fallacies of your argument, which is why you refuse to address the points. You have no argument to defend your logic jump.

It has EVERYTHING with work and compensation because that defines owner. You keep wanting to make a claim that this is funded by taxpayer dollars, but the only way that can be true is if the money paid to the Unions is taxpayer dollars, not private dollars. This is in fact integral to your argument. A teacher's money is their money. Once that money has been paid to an individual as compensation for labor, the money becomes THEIRS. It is no longer the government's. It is no longer tax payer dollars. It has become private dollars. And those private dollars go towards union dues. That's the end all be all of it. Your argument does not hold water.

Now that last question of yours, that's a shifting of the goal posts. Because at no time has this argument ever, AND THE ROCK MEANS EVER, been about my opinion on the individual's ability to join or decline joining a union. I personally think someone should be free to do so. And if they choose not to support the union, that's fine; but they should not receive any of the benefits which have been brought by through the Union. Plain and simple. But this has NOTHING to do with those unions being "publically" funded or not.

Click to expand...

Ikari said:

No, I don't have speakers on my work computer. But it doesn't matter as the Unions are not funded with taxpayer dollars.

Click to expand...

The Barbarian said:

-chuckles- I don't often disagree with your posts, this is one I just happen to. without taxpayer funding, teachers would not have jobs, their employer is basically the taxpayers of Wisconsin, now I might bow out, if teachers were given the choice to belong to that union or not to. But they aren't, if you want to teach at a public school in Wisconsin, you have to be a union member. To be a union member your dues are mandatory, that money that they are paid, comes from the taxpayers of Wisconsin.

Click to expand...

Conservative said:

I cannot believe you and others cannot see the connection. Where do you think the money comes from to fund the unions if not the salaries of the workers, a salary paid for by the taxpayers? Did you ever take a logic's class in school?

Click to expand...

Not to belabor the point, but once taxpayer dollars paid to employees in the form of salary, it ceases to belong to the taxpayer. If one is going to say these unions are taxpayer-funded, then I would expect to see a line item in the state's budget for it. Taking that stance is rather gaming the system.

I can't believe, with all of the truly relevant points available to argue, that we're spending more than a nanosecond on this subject.

Is this where we start talkin' rutabegas?

Click to expand...

buck said:

So, if the ownership of that money was transferred, I am sure that the individual employee can choose what to do with it. What if they choose not to pay the union dues?

Click to expand...

MaggieD said:

Not to belabor the point, but once taxpayer dollars paid to employees in the form of salary, it ceases to belong to the taxpayer. If one is going to say these unions are taxpayer-funded, then I would expect to see a line item in the state's budget for it. Taking that stance is rather gaming the system.

Click to expand...

The Barbarian said:

Now I agree with everything you just said, until we get to the part where a teacher “has” to belong to a union in Wisconsin, if it was a teachers choice to belong or not to belong,.... I would never have gotten into this fray..... But when you have to belong, and have to pay union dues, then in my opinion, that is nothing more then an added tax, and is just another payroll deduction, like federal income tax or SS

Click to expand...

j-mac said:

Thanks TPD, in that case, couldn't a logical argument be then that since these dues are deducted and that they are not voluntary, that it is indeed taxpayer money funneling into the union coffers for those that don't specifically write the checks.

Think of it in the same argument of benefits included with salary. Most working people you ask when they see those two together, tend to scoff it off as not a true representation of pay, just as these union members have no choice nor do they actually write the check, so it really isn't their money.....

j-mac

Click to expand...

Conservative said:

Hard to deal with people who haven't a clue, like you. This is about forced union dues being paid to unions with pay that comes from the taxpayers. If you cannot understand that, sorry, but that makes you a typical stereotyped union employee who believes they're entitled to that money. Let's see how they like it when they are forced into paying those union dues by check instead of payroll deduction? Guess forcing the people to pay union dues is ok in your book?

Click to expand...

Ockham said:

Yeah I guess I do have to belabor the point. So here's a question:

Can the Wisconsin teachers, any of them, stop paying dues to the union?

Click to expand...

Ikari said:

Nice deflect. No one is being force. They all agreed to the contract when they took the job.

Click to expand...