Note to self: It takes fewer representatives to take rights than to work on a budget

| Wednesday, March 9, 2011

I guess we should hurry up and fix the first amendment to read something like "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, so long as they do not expect to accomplish anything whatsoever by assembly or petition."

That sounds about right.

P.S. If you didn't read the link, the WI senate passed the parts that have nothing to do with the budget (which requires a smaller number of senators present), which most notably involved stripping the public unions of the ability to have any point in existing. Even the way they pass the bill contradicts their claim that it is about the budget. More on this on Saturday.


Anonymous said...

This is silly on so many levels, but I will pick one because it is early. Twenty six (now twenty seven) states ban public employee unions from collective bargaining for benefits. Those states still have public employee unions. They bargain for wages.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, see.... this is what happens when one side of the discussion runs away and won't participate. Sorry, that's not how we work here; you can't just refuse to do your job just because you think you might lose.

Klepsacovic said...

That bargaining is then limited to inflation and nothing else. Or alternatively, having lost rights to bargain collectively, they're all fired and no discussion even begins.

A filibuster is a form of participation. If not overused, it is a way of saying "what you are attempting to do is so extreme that we believe you should require a greater portion of agreement." As for "participation", there was none to be done; if they stayed in the state it could pass exactly as it was proposed, whether they debated or not, whether they voted against it or not. They would have no opportunity to debate it or discuss it; it would simply pass no matter what they said.

If instead they leave and block it, they buy time for people to see what is going on and to actually discuss it.

Michael said...

The WoW equivalent of what 'Collective Bargaining' actually means would be that raid leaders would be unable to kick people from their raids as needed. Instead they'd tell someone else (who can never be kicked) that 'someone' needs to be kicked, and then that person kicks whoever joined the guild most recently, even if that person is performing much better than others in the raid.

The phrase 'collective bargaining' _sounds_ good, but remember that the opposite of collective bargaining is called 'right to work'. :P

Don't get too caught up in the rhetoric. This change will provide people with better, cheaper service. XD

Klepsacovic said...

Yes 'right to work' also _sounds_ good. It tends to mean something more like "right to fire at any time for any reason, whether related to performance or not."

I want to be clear: Unions need reform. Big time reform. But abolishing entirely (which is the overall effect if they can't bargain) them is setting back a whole lot of progress. Sadly, I'm not seeing much of this from either side, with conservatives being too "CRUSH KILL DESTROY!" and liberals being too "you can't touch the union! EVER! NO NO NO NO!"

hound said...

Take a look at Lansin, Michigan's "Emergency Manager" bill that is about to make it through. Not only does it follow WI's collective bargaining fun, but it also allows any local government to be abolished and replaced with a corporate-minded, non-elected floozy of the state times.

Post a Comment

Comments in posts older than 21 days will be moderated to prevent spam. Comments in posts younger than 21 days will be checked for ID.

Powered by Blogger.