RE: Union busting illegal!

RE: Union busting illegal! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

domiguy -> RE: Union busting illegal! (5/27/2011 5:46:38 AM)
luckydawg...lol. Reading his shit almost makes me feel sorry for him...almost.

Lucylastic -> RE: Union busting illegal! (5/27/2011 5:56:50 AM)
You are just a complex humanitarian Domi

Hippiekinkster -> RE: Union busting illegal! (5/27/2011 6:14:28 AM)
[sm=champ.gif][sm=cheering.gif][sm=cheerleader.gif]

mnottertail -> RE: Union busting illegal! (5/27/2011 7:34:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: luckydawg quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Yeah, I hear that but open meeting is pretty fuckin cut and dried and alot of caselaw reinforcing it, I don't care if its Jeb Bush and Scott Walker sitting on that bench, the nebulous miasmatic wending and slithering of legal principle and language interpretation that could make that piece of shit stick ......... And further, given the explication of the law by the current WI Attorney General.... http://www.doj.state.wi.us/dls/OMPR/2010OMCG-PRO/2010_OML_Compliance_Guide.pdf Who is going to prosecute the case on behalf of the state? I mean especially given that these fucking idiots down there have the defense that senate rule 93 only states that a 2 hour notice of special session has to be put on the bulletin board, which implies that senate rules are supreme to state law? Jesus, there is only one person I can think of in the world from wisconsin who would argue that correctness of law, and he aint got a license. Actually on page 4 of your link it states, "The open meetings law also does not apply where it conflicts with a rule of the Legislature, senate, or assembly. Wis. Stat. § 19.87(2)." Wisconson law specifically says Senate rules take precedence. Read the ruling, the judge notes that since this was a conference committee, IOW both Senate and House members present, the Senates rules do not apply. Yeah, his misunderstanding of legal concepts and general lack of acumen is renown. Now, if rule 93 stated : Any bill under vote has to be posted on the bulletin board for 2 hours before the vote and this satisfys the open meeting law (or even the open meeting law be damned)............then you got a conflict. But sadly and pathetically, it don't.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Union busting illegal! (5/27/2011 9:20:32 AM)
So the legislature cant reverse a law that granted a "right" that didnt exist before that law? A "right" that the majority of states don't recognize? Anyone want to wager on the SCOTUS decision?

mnottertail -> RE: Union busting illegal! (5/27/2011 9:22:45 AM)
Could yo start your own thread instead of hijacking this one? What you are blathering about has nothing to do with this thread.

Musicmystery -> RE: Union busting illegal! (5/27/2011 9:22:47 AM)
quote: Anyone want to wager on the SCOTUS decision? That a Union is a person and deserves the same rights? [;)]

DomKen -> RE: Union busting illegal! (5/27/2011 9:34:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy So the legislature cant reverse a law that granted a "right" that didnt exist before that law? A "right" that the majority of states don't recognize? Anyone want to wager on the SCOTUS decision? Unions are based on rights granted in the Constitution. Specifically the Right to Assemble and in the case of government workers the right to petition the government. SCOTUS as presently constituted may try to ignore those facts but that would just add fire to the argument that Thomas and Scalia need to be removed or additional justices appointed.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Union busting illegal! (5/27/2011 11:23:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy So the legislature cant reverse a law that granted a "right" that didnt exist before that law? A "right" that the majority of states don't recognize? Anyone want to wager on the SCOTUS decision? Unions are based on rights granted in the Constitution. Specifically the Right to Assemble and in the case of government workers the right to petition the government. SCOTUS as presently constituted may try to ignore those facts but that would just add fire to the argument that Thomas and Scalia need to be removed or additional justices appointed. Whether unions may form and exist isnt the issue. Obviously they can under the Constitution. The question is can an entity be forced to have only union employees as an option for a particular job.

DomKen -> RE: Union busting illegal! (5/27/2011 2:12:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy So the legislature cant reverse a law that granted a "right" that didnt exist before that law? A "right" that the majority of states don't recognize? Anyone want to wager on the SCOTUS decision? Unions are based on rights granted in the Constitution. Specifically the Right to Assemble and in the case of government workers the right to petition the government. SCOTUS as presently constituted may try to ignore those facts but that would just add fire to the argument that Thomas and Scalia need to be removed or additional justices appointed. Whether unions may form and exist isnt the issue. Obviously they can under the Constitution. The question is can an entity be forced to have only union employees as an option for a particular job. So called "Right to Work" wasn't even an issue in Wisconsin. And it would be a 14th violation to change the law only for state workers.

mnottertail -> RE: Union busting illegal! (5/27/2011 2:15:49 PM)
and even moreso for just a select group of them.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Union busting illegal! (5/27/2011 4:41:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy So the legislature cant reverse a law that granted a "right" that didnt exist before that law? A "right" that the majority of states don't recognize? Anyone want to wager on the SCOTUS decision? Unions are based on rights granted in the Constitution. Specifically the Right to Assemble and in the case of government workers the right to petition the government. SCOTUS as presently constituted may try to ignore those facts but that would just add fire to the argument that Thomas and Scalia need to be removed or additional justices appointed. Whether unions may form and exist isnt the issue. Obviously they can under the Constitution. The question is can an entity be forced to have only union employees as an option for a particular job. So called "Right to Work" wasn't even an issue in Wisconsin. And it would be a 14th violation to change the law only for state workers. I didnt say anything about right to work, although its a similar issue. It took legislation to grant bargaining powers to a specific job..ie the state gave up the right to hire non-union workers. It cant possibly be unconstitutional to either retract those powers or hire non-union workers in parallel. There is a constitutional right to form a union, there is no constitutional right to force union employees on any employer or to force an employee to join one in order to work. There is a difference between public jobs and private sector jobs that further weakens the union's argument. And the 14th amendment argument is just silly. If it wasnt unconstitutional to grant bargaining to only state workers it cant be unconstitutional to retract it.

mnottertail -> RE: Union busting illegal! (5/27/2011 4:46:50 PM)
thats ignoring alot of realities, issues, contracts currently in force, and good faith, among other things.

luckydawg -> RE: Union busting illegal! (5/27/2011 7:53:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: Anyone want to wager on the SCOTUS decision? That a Union is a person and deserves the same rights? [;)] The right to force people to pay them as a condition of employment? Which people have that right?

Musicmystery -> RE: Union busting illegal! (5/27/2011 7:55:11 PM)
OK, more rights.

luckydawg -> RE: Union busting illegal! (5/27/2011 7:58:57 PM)
and why would they grant that? And would that also grant the same power to Corparations? And individuals?

Musicmystery -> RE: Union busting illegal! (5/27/2011 8:02:26 PM)
You tell me. It's your game. I simply conceded your point.

luckydawg -> RE: Union busting illegal! (5/27/2011 8:10:38 PM)
It was wilburs point actually.

Brain -> RE: Union busting illegal! (5/27/2011 8:41:24 PM)
There is no valid reason to reverse the lower court ruling. I expect if it is reversed to find out the judges are biased Republicans who think they can do whatever they want. A reversal would be unfortunate. quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Yeah, ok...that's coming into focus, now. It's pretty much a foregone conclusion that the Wisconsin Supreme Court will reverse the lower court and the plaintiffs will appeal to the federal appelate level etc.

Brain -> RE: Union busting illegal! (5/27/2011 8:52:47 PM)
The state's have plenty of money and these 'crises' are manufactured by Republican governors to justify unionbusting. Republican governors that they engage in these unnecessary wasteful boondoggles? And at the same time they neglect the legitimate needs of people that need help. 4 Fantastically Stupid Projects Pushed By Republicans Aiming to Please Their Corporate Masters The narrative that there isn’t enough money isn’t true. In state after state, legislatures are able to find hundreds of millions of dollars to spend on the whims of the rich. 1. Kentucky’s $43 million Bible theme Park 2. Texas’s tax break for yacht owners 3. Gov. Christie’s Money Pit 4. Public funding of union-busting corporations South Carolina’s unemployment rate remains above the national average in a state with some of the country’s least generous jobless benefits. Meanwhile, thousands of residents are currently protesting officials’ plans to cut $700 million from the state’s Medicaid and education programs. In state after state, legislatures are able to find hundreds of millions of dollars for the pet projects of yacht-owners, and for the every whim and desire of their corporate masters. The truth is that America’s vast resources aren’t being spent in an efficient manner. Officials throw money at big, glamorous-sounding Xanadu fantasies, or to bible-thumping constituents and strong-arming corporate cronies who make unfounded claims of trickle-down prosperity. Politicians do this in order to build monuments for their own legacies in a pathetic effort to obtain immortality, or to buy off the right players in attempts to seize power again in two, or four years, so they can prop up more extravagant headstones. But in no way is this system meant to provide for the majority of American citizens. In fact, from what we see by examining these spectacularly stupid projects, the opposite is usually the case. http://www.alternet.org/story/151043/4_fantastically_stupid_projects_bankrolled_by_republicans_aiming_to_please_their_corporate_masters?page=entire quote: ORIGINAL: cuckoldmepls Let me explain. City and states only have so much money in the budget. If they can't afford the benefits that public unions demand, then the only choice will be to lay some of them off so they can afford the benefits for the others. Another likely possibility is to contract out the work to private contractors who will do it for far less and no benefits. Public unions are going to shoot themselves in the foot just like private sector unions do.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.1396484