What right are they losing?

[GenSeneca]

I have learned no to trust politifact too much.

It's common knowledge to most people...

The bill as proposed by Walker and approved by the Assembly last month would repeal bargaining by public employee unions over their benefits and work conditions, leaving only bargaining over wages with a cap based on the rate of inflation, barring a referendum. -JSOnline

However, Walker has folded like cheap lawn chair proving he has no political backbone and making this entire discussion purely academic. So with that in mind I will respond to other statements you made on the topic.

Does an employer have to agree to collective bargaining for it to exist and be effective?

Yes. The union has nobody to negotiate with if the employer refuses to sit at the table.

...the union could still call a strike.

True, it is their Right to do so. However, the employer also has the Right to fire any, or all, strikers. While that employer Right is not often recognized by the state, it still exists. Banning an employer from exercising such a basic Right puts the Union at an unfair advantage.

Now going back to my original point about placing additional limitations on Rights I ask again; so long as the union is able to collectively bargain for at least one specific item you do not consider their loss of ability to collectively bargain for other items previously allowed to be a loss of Rights?

 

[GenSeneca]

Now going back to my original point about placing additional limitations on Rights I ask again; so long as the union is able to collectively bargain for at least one specific item you do not consider their loss of ability to collectively bargain for other items previously allowed to be a loss of Rights?

Forgive me Dr.Who, you have answered this question so please strike it from my previous post.

 

[Dr.Who]

yes it does

How does it do that?

Does it make it so they cannot negotiate for health care, can't even ask?
Does it make it so they cannot have a union rep sit at the table?
Does it make it so the employer cannot give raises or benefits even if they are asked for?

 

[Dr.Who]

Here is a link to the full text of the amended bill, which the Assembly will take up on Thursday, March 10.

http://www.defendwisconsin.org/2011/03/10/full-text-of-the-amended-budget-repair-bill/

I can't open PDF files on my computer but if anyone wants to cut and paste sections that take away rights I want to see it.

 

[Dr.Who]

From what I understand so far...

AT some point the unions were given the right to pick their own health insurance plans that the employer would pay for. (just one example). Since it was given by law they can call it a right. Not an inalienable right but a civil right. And no that does not mean it is about race relations or fairness. It just means that the right was given by a civil statute. And rights that are given or made up as a result of a statute can just as easily be removed. Which is what is happening now.

Should they be removed? Yes. Most definitions of a civil right say that they belong to a person on the basis of that persons citizenship. And since all of us citizens to not have that same right it is a law that violates the equal protection clause of the constitution.

The legislators who wrote that law should be recalled if still in office and removed. They were clearly doing something shady.

About the recall of the other legislators in Wisconsin? I have no objection to attempts to get enough names on a petition to put any of them up for recall for any reason whatsoever. Then the people will decide if it was too derelict to flee the state to avoid a vote or if it was reprehensible to strip unions of a right they should have never had.

 

[Apathy]

Privatize education, problem solved.